9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ₹ 9,000/-. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to direct the Ld. ITO to add ₹ 49,09,000/- u/s. 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 4. For that Ld. CIT(A) should have quashed the Assessment Order made u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2009 based on suspicion surmise only, which was also barred by limitation. 2. First we take up ground No. 4 of the appeal as it goes to the validity of the assessment order. 2.1. The AO completed the assessment vide order dated 31st December, 2008. The Ld. AR has contended that the assessment order was received by the assessee on 20th January, 2009 and as such the assessment order is barred by limitation. 2.2. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, he has stated the figure of ₹ 42,00,000/- at one place and ₹ 44,00,000/- at another place of page 3 of the assessment order. We agree with the Ld. AR that the AO has mentioned the varying figure in the assessment order but, we are of the considered view that the same are inadvertently and if read with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the total amount considered by the AO is ₹ 49,00,000/- which has been added while completing the assessment. 3.1. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the said addition of ₹ 49,00,000/-. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A), at page 3 of the impugned order has given the details of the amount deposited and amount withdrawn by the assessee in his bank account which is as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Self Rs.1,50,000/- - 17.10.05 By cash - Rs.10,00,000/- 28.10.05 Self Rs.3,00,000/- - 31.10.05 Self Rs.5,00,000/- - 16.11.05 Self ₹ 50,000/- - 31.12.05 Transfer Rs.5,09,900/- - 18.01.06 Transfer CC424 - Rs.5,09,000/- 18.01.06 Self Rs.5,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not valid and the addition should be deleted. 3.5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3.6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties and the orders of the authorities below. We observe that the said bank account is undisclosed and the entries in the said bank account are not entered in the books of accounts of the assessee. The above facts have been stated by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 3 of the impugned order and during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR has not disputed before us. On perusal of the said bank account, we observe that there were deposits and withdrawals from time to time. We also observe from the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en given by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 3 of the impugned order, which has already been reproduced hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the peak of the balance in the said bank account should be considered as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I. T. Act. On perusal of the said bank statement, we observe that the peak balance as on 14th June, 2005 of ₹ 16,15,261/- and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount could be considered as unexplained investment by way of deposit in the said undisclosed bank account. Therefore, we modify the orders of the authorities below and restrict the addition to ₹ 16,15,261/- u/s. 69 of the I. T. Act as against ₹ 49.09 lacs u/s. 69A as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
