9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 918/Bang/2018 : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,95,000/-, based merely on the written submission of the assessee and accepting that the assessee had sufficient cash balance to deposit in the banks, disregarding the fact that the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits in the bank account, with supporting details/evidences and preparing a cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting and considering fresh submissions as stated in Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Para 10 of the appellate order and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, disregarding the fact that the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash payments with supporting details/evidences and preparing a cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, wherein, as per the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer has the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng taxable income at Rs. 10,19,690/- on 4/04/2013. The Ld. AO observed that, assessee and his wife are engaged in the provision of film production for several years and are partners in M/s. Lakshmishree Combines. The Ld. AO observed that L. Manju is drawing salary income from the partnership firm, income from house property and also business income from other sources. Ld. AO called for various details in respect of purchase and sale of properties. 3. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that the properties purchased by L. Manju at Kengeri and Hoskerehalli were out of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO treated the same as investment out of undisclosed income and added Rs. 2,04,20,268/- in the hands of Lakshmi Manju. 4. In case of K. Manju the Ld. AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) in case of K. Manju observed that assessee had sufficient cash balance to fund deposits into the bank and meet the production expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that provisions of section 68/69 is not enforceable and similarly provisions of section 40A(3) are also not enforceable to the extent of payments made to various technicians. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on submissions made by assessee. In case of Lakshmishree Manju, the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions of assessee and passed a cryptic order deleting the addition. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), revenues and appeal before us now. 8. At the outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
