9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bank account but the assessee did not furnish any corroborative evidences regarding these deposits. CIT (A) has also stated that the rejoinder of the assessee was vague and did not throw any light on the issue. The assessee could not explain the source of deposits by co-relating the same to the advances received on various dates. All the same, looking into the facts of the case and in view of the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the impugned amount with documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) is directed to examine the issue afresh based on the evidences being furnished by the assessee to substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 Aggrieved, the assessee is now before this Tribunal and has challenged the adjudication by the Ld. CIT (A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That no notice U/s 148 was served upon the assessee. Hence, assessment made by the A.O. U/s 144 is bad in law because it is not supporting by Section 147 of LT. Act 1961. 2. That the A.O. has made addition of ₹ 59,97,000/- deposited in bank in P.N.B. in fact the copy of bank account is not available to the assessee due to the Notebandi and heavy rush in bank therefore, the assessee could not furnish bank detail and reply. 3. That the assessee has sold his agriculture land situated at Shakarpur, Meerut which is more than 12 kms away from the municipal limit. Hence, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee did not explain the bank deposits of the assessee in Punjab National Bank, Account No.0318 0003 0034 7218. The Ld. CIT (A) has referred to the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer before him, wherein the Assessing Officer has specifically pointed out that the cash deposits made by the assessee between 24.04.2008 and 03.05.2008 totaling to ₹ 14,50,000/- could not be explained with reference to the sale of land, as claimed. The following chart gives a break-up of the cash transactions remaining explained: SL No. Date Amount Cheque/Cash 1. 24.04.2008 9,00,000/- Cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue. We are also of the opinion that the assessee could not explain the source of deposits by co-relating the same to the advances received on various dates. All the same, looking into the facts of the case and in view of the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the impugned amount with documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) is directed to examine the issue afresh based on the evidences being furnished by the assessee to substantiate his claim. 6.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29th December, 2020. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
