9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 to 1998-99 therefore, this issue is also set aside to the record of the CIT(A) of fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and conducting a proper enquiry regarding the fact whether it pertains to the financial year 1995-96 or not. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the matter within the period of 90 days from receipt of this order. - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.26/ALLD/2020 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2021 - Shri.Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Asit Hajela, CA For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR) ORDER PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-93 to A.Y. 1998-99 alongwith other relevant papers and documents relating to 'set aside1 of the additions of deposits which were treated as cash credits and in respect of which the interest payments had been made, were submitted before the Ld. C1T(A). 05. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while confirming the addition of ₹ 95.000/- being the security deposit in the name of Raj Bahadur treated as undisclosed deposit under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by not appreciating that is was an old outstanding balance pertaining to AY 1996-97. 06. BECAUSE the security deposit was only a book adjustment and did not result from any transaction occurring during the assessment year under appeal. 07. BECAUSE all details pertaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t once the matter was set aside and the CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the same as per the direction of this Tribunal no disallowance of interest is called for and the addition not justified. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that though the issue was set aside by this Tribunal to the record of the CIT(A) however, the assessee is not co-operating with the proceeding before the CIT(A) for reconstruction of the record. The Ld. DR has pointed out that the record of the CIT(A) is not traceable and therefore the assistance of the assessee is required for reconstruction of file for the AY 1992-93 to 1998-99 so that the matters set aside by this Tribunal could be adjudicated. 3. Having considered the rival submissions as well as rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accepted by the A.O. The facts are that Assesses is an HUF and derives income from business of financing. It accepted deposits from various parties and paid interest thereon. The A.O. summoned these 10 persons but they neither appeared nor were produced by the Assessee. The learned C.I.T. (A) was of the view that the Assesses was legally obliged to produce these persons before the A.O. for examination. Even though documentary evidences were submitted before the A.O. about deposits made by these persons but there WAS no evidence for financial capacity of the alleged depositors. The stand of the Assessee was that he has filed confirmatory letters respect of all the depositors. But the same was not accepted by the learned A.O. Learned C.I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque on 16.08.1997, in respect of Suman Kumari Jain money was returned by cheque on 30.03.1996 partly and balance on 03.08.1999 again, by cheque, hi ease of Kiran Jain money was returned on. 25.07.1997, in case of Rajrani Gupta money was refunded on 18.11.1993, in case of Poonam Gupta money was refunded on 09.07.1994, in case of Atul Kumar money was refunded on 03.08.1999, in case of Rumesh Chandra Gupta money was refunded on 24.10.199S by cheques. This is the position in respect of oilier depositors like Sobhit Rastogi. Thus the position is that money was refunded o the depositors by cheques and therefore identity of the depositors is prims facie established. But so far creak worthiness of the depositors is .concerned we accept th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g adjudication deposit before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall to adjudicate the matter within a period of 90 days from the receipt of this order of the Tribunal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. As regards the second issue regarding addition made u/s 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961, the assessee has contended before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) that this security deposit of ₹ 95,000/- is not taken during the year under consideration but it is an old deposit received by assessee relates to the financial year 1995-96. After hearing, the Ld. AR as well as DR and perusal of orders of the authorities below it is noted that neither Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has tried to verify this fact whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
