9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has not filed any details. AR at the time of hearing filed application under Rule 27 thereby supporting the order of the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not given detailed finding as to why the said unexplained cash credit should be taken into account when the evidences before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) lacks the genuineness creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the addition - Decided in favour of revenue. - ITA Nos.23/RJT/2016, 74/RJT/2018, 81/RJT/2017 & 75/RJT/2018 And ITA No.212/RJT/2016 And ITA No.24/RJT/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2023 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rajendra Singhal, AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer may kindly be restored back. 3. The assessee did not file his return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited aggregate cash of Rs.10,05,23,637/- in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank. As the assessee did not file his return of income, the source of the said cash deposit remained unexplained and therefore the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after recording reasons thereof. Despite giving several notices, none responded to the said notices. The Assessing Officer observed that the DGCEI Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad had investigated under-valuation and clandestine clearance of ceramic glaz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has rightly made the addition under unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) has not taken any cognisance of the conduct of the assessee and simplicitor deleted the amount thereby taking the peak balance of Rs.19,98,287/- after verification of bank account. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer be confirmed. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that it is not disputed fact that the assessee is into the shroffs business. As the assessee did not substantiate his claim of commission income, the best option was to tax the peak balance which was rightly done by the CIT(A). Ld. AR relied upon the decision of M/s. Shri Sidhnath Enterprise vs. ACIT, ITA No.374/RJT/2017 for AY 2012-13, order dated 29.06.2022. The Ld. AR furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Section 263 of the Act, the CIT(A) has also taken the similar view as that of in the reopening proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and hence ITA No.74/RJT/2018 is allowed. 9. ITA No.81/RJT/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 is similar to ITA No.23/RJT/2016 for A.Y. 2006-07 and hence the same is allowed. 10. ITA No.75/RJT/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 is also similar to A.Y. 2006-07 and hence allowed. 11. As regards ITA No.24/RJT/2016 in case of Paresh Dhanjibhai Patel, the facts are similar and hence the same is allowed and ITA No.212/RJT/2016 in case of Ashokbhai Kishorbhai Parmar, the facts are identical and hence the same is also allowed. 12. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed. Order pronounced in the open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
