9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in accepting self serving documents not corroborated or examined during assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence viz details of withdrawals from the bank account admitted by him as per provisions u/s 46A(3) of IT Rules nor asking for any cash flow statement and comments on the same by the Assessing Officer. 4. Set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine fresh evidences in a holistic manner. The appellant craves the right to add any other ground of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is proprietor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Assessing Officer was not satisfied and again asked the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2009 to explain the source of deposit. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prepare the cash flow statement and was also again asked as to the difference between gross sales of ₹ .12.04 lakhs which included payments received through cheques whereas the cash deposit in bank was ₹ .12.05 lakhs. In view of this, the assessee submitted as under:- "In response the AR in his submission dated 24.11.209 stated as under:- Opening cash balance ₹ . 92,864.62 Add: Cash withdrawn from Bank. ₹ .15,13,580.00 Add: Cash sales & received from debtors. ₹ . 1,57,842.00 --------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the appellant regarding availability of cash which was deposited by him in his bank account with IDBI Bank. The crucial mistake made by the Assessing Officer was not to give any credit to the appellant for cash withdrawal and re-deposited in his bank account, which increased the availability of cash as more money was brought into rotation by being withdrawn and then being redeposited. The appellant has brought sufficient evidence on record to prove his case and therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ .12,05,500/- does not stand test of judicial scrutiny and is hereby deleted." 7. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 8. At the outset, the Ld DR submitted that cash in hand as calculated at paper book pages ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
