9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the assessee had already submitted reply mentioning his inability to produce them. The Assessing Officer has also not disputed the sales declared by the assessee, so the corresponding purchases should have been accepted. In the alternative, the assessee submitted that, if the Assessing Officer had held the assessee as entry provider, the entire cash deposits in said Bank a/c could not belong to the assessee. It is contradiction in terms to treat entry provider and owner of the cash deposits made in bank account. After hearing both the parties and the rival submissions, in the interest of justice, we set aside the appeal and remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to check entries - Appeal of the assessee allowed for sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 16,55,000 as unexplained cash deposits. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 16,55,000 as unexplained cash deposits. 3.1 The CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant was a entry provider. 3.2 The CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding the transactions of purchases as non genuine. 4.1 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, presuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was a entry provider and given gifts as alleged by AO, the entire cash deposits in Bank a/c could not be held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain the source of cash deposit of ₹ 16,55,000/- in the aforesaid bank account and the AR of the assessee vide reply dated 08.10.2012 submitted the details of purchase ledger account along with purchase bills and sales register account along with duplicate copy of the sales bill. Therefore, for the verification of genuineness of the transaction, the notice u/s 133(6) was issued to the purchaser at the address mentioned in the purchase bill submitted by the assessee; however, the said notices were returned by the postal authority with remark not known . Subsequently, further inquiries have also been conducted through ward inspector in respect of Samprati Enterprise, Shivam Enterprise and Swagat Agency and he in turn reported tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced confirmation and PAN Nos. of three major parties. The assessee further stated that assessee is a small cloth merchant, on which VAT/Sales tax are not applicable; hence, they cannot produce the VAT/Sales Tax return. However, the reply of the assessee is not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer and he accordingly made addition of ₹ 16,55,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. 6. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have gone through the record and impugned orders passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions with the assessee, the same could not be rejected for petty reasons like unsigned return of income, PAN card etc which could have been got signed from them by issuing notice or making cross verification with their concerned ITO. Form the record, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had neither issued deficiency notice to them/the assessee nor issued any show cause on this ground. Thus, no opportunity was allowed to the assessee to substantiate his claim. As for the rest of the parties the assessee had already submitted reply mentioning his inability to produce them. The Assessing Officer has also not disputed the sales declared by the assessee, so the corresponding purchases should have been accepted. In the alternative, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
