9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue. We therefore are inclined to quash the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed U/s. 263 of the Act thereby upholding the order of the Ld. AO. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 118/Viz/2022 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2022 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN , HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar , CA Respondent by : Sri MN Murthy Naik , CIT - DR ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN , Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr. CIT] passed U/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] vide DIN Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1042125639(1), dated 30/03/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 23/2/2022. In response to the show cause notice the assessee filed the required information before the Ld. Pr. CIT. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. Pr. CIT not convinced with the replies and directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment in accordance with law after making all necessary enquiries and verification in respect of the issues mentioned in para 5 of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT after affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and facts in assuming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in law. 6. Your appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the above grounds of appeal. 4. The Learned Authorized Representative argued that the Ld. Pr. CIT has raised an issue with regard to cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 27 lakhs. The Ld. AR submitted that relevant bank account statements were submitted before the Ld. AO and also before the Ld. Pr. CIT demonstrating the sources for the cash deposits during the demonetization period. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT has alleged a lower yield at 60% whereas the yield disclosed by the assessee in Form 3CD is @ 69%. The Ld. AR further submitted that in paddy 69% of yielding is reasonable as per the industry standards. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 to 10/11/2016. The Ld. AR also submitted in his paper book page No. 105 the cash withdrawals and deposits have been accounted in the cash book maintained by the assessee. We also find that the assessee had a closing balance of cash on 8/11/2016 at Rs. 31,55,234.91. We therefore find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that these cash was deposited into the bank account subsequent to announcement of demonetization. In an alternative, the Ld. AR also argued that since the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 9,08,700/- due to declaration of low GP ratio which the assessee has accepted, requested for the telescoping benefit in the cash deposits during the demonetization period. We find from the assessment order that the Ld. AO has verified bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
