9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short the 'Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of property development, undertaking civil contract work and trading in building material, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 15,55,937/-. The return was processed and assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment, based on the information received from DDIT (Inv.) to the effect that the assessee had deposited cheque of Rs. 2 crore in his account, maintained with HSBC on 23.01.2008 and the same was withdrawn on 29.01.2008. Further, the assessee had deposited Rs. 12,50,000/- in account maintained with Deutsche Bank, Khar, Mumbai on vari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed. Appellant prays addition of Rs. 2 crores may please be deleted. Ground No. 2: Unexplained cash credit u/s 69A On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dy. CIT (AO) erred in making addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs) arbitrary by treating the peak of cash credit of Rs. 3,00,000/- as deemed income of appellant. The learned CIT (Appeal)-48 Mumbai upheld the order of Assessing Officer Dy CIT - 2(3) by stating in her order in para 5.2 since assesse could not explain source of this peak, the addition was made by the AO. Appellant prays addition of Rs. 3 lacs may please be deleted. Ground No. 3: Penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee had taken advance to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from Yash Birla Construction Group and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished confirmation and other documentary evidence to establish genuineness of the transaction, however, the authorities below have made/confirmed addition and added to the income of the assessee without considering the evidence on record. Similarly, vide Ground No. 2 the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- treating the peak of cash credit as deemed income of the assessee. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the assessee has furnished acknowledgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the AO has made the additions without conducting any enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed this grievance of the assessee in its order. We further notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has endorsed the findings of the AO holding that the newly introduced proviso to section 68 by Finance Act lays down a more stringent test for the companies where public are not substantially interested. The Ld. CIT (A) has nowhere discussed the plea of the assessee and the reasons for rejecting the same. Similarly, the Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as deemed income merely stating that the assessee could not explain the source of the cash credit in questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
