9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No. 1594/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2017 - SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.DR For The Respondent : None Present ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 27/01/2011 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [in short the Ld. CIT-(A) ] for assessment year 2005-06 raising following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, by deleting the additions made on account of unverified and unconfirmed advances from customers, when the assessee did not produce books of accounts before the Assessing Officer, Neither in the course of original assessment proceedings, nor in the course of remand proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition of unverified and unconfirmed advances, when the assessee had failed to establish credit worthiness of the persons giving the advances and further failed to prove genuineness of the transaction. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Act along with questionnaire. The Assessing Officer provided various opportunities to the assessee for making compliance of the notices and even issued penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. In view of the noncompliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act i.e. best judgment assessment on 26/12/2007 on the basis of the material available on record and assessed the total income at ₹ 45,30,940/-. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT-(A) and filed additional evidences which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer submitted a detailed remand report and after taking into account the remand report and rejoinder of the assessee, the Ld. CIT-(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the relief allowed, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. In the grounds raised, the sole issue is related to addition on account of advances from the customers. 5. Before us, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that learned CIT-(A) has allowed relief to the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount 1 Shri Rajesh Garg Rs.4,70,000/- 2 Ms. Sadhna Garg ₹ 7,10,000/- 3. Sh. Vipul Khandelwal ₹ 1,50,000/ 4. Sh. Praveen Gupta ₹ 2,00,0007 5. Sh. Nitin Bdnsal ₹ 1,00,000/- 6. Sh. Dr. Rathore ₹ 2,82,000/- 7. Sh. V.K. Garg ₹ 3,00,000/- 8. Ms. Nidhi Garg ₹ 2,00,000/- 9 Smt. Kusum Lata Garg Rs.2,00,000/- 10. Sh. Jagdish Garg ₹ 2,00,000/- 11. Sh. O.P. Nangia ₹ 1,00,000/- 12. Sh. K.M. Sharma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The advances appearing in the name of Sh. Nitin Bansal (Rs.1,00,000/-), was found part of the payments mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 23/04/2005. 11. The observation of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the comments of the Assessing Officer in the remand report, are summarized as under: 1. In most of the cases, the Assessing Officer has accepted genuineness of the advances. 2. Wherever doubts have been raised, the doubts are more in respect of bifurcations of cash and cheque payments. 3. Some of the advances are carry forward and thus on technical grounds those could not be added in the year under consideration. 12. Out of the amount of ₹ 44,62,000/-, the learned CIT-(A) himself has held following credits amounting to ₹ 7,32,000/- as unexplained: Sl. No. Name Amount Comments 1. Sh.Vipul Khandelwal 1,50,000/- No details 2. Dr. Rathore 1,82,000/- AO accept that ₹ 1,00,000/- was read during A.Y. 2004-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
