9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld. Revenue's appeal is dismissed. - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For the Revenue : Shri Kailash Mangal (JCIT) For the Assessee : Shri Mahendra Gargia (Adv.) ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27/04/2012 passed by the learned CIT (A)-III, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- i The CIT(A) has passed a perverse order in concluding that telescoping was to be necessarily allowed suo moto by the A.O. even when the burden of proving its eligibility was on the assessee. ii. The CIT(A) has thus erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by observing that the assessee has submitted the cash-flow statement before the Assessing Officer, however, the learned Assessing Officer did not allow the telescopic claim of the assessee on the grounds that the relevant documents of investment made in the Sayyed Colony were not bearing any date, therefore, nexus between cash-inflow and outflow of the same and the investment made in purchases of the house are not established. It is undisputed fact that unrecorded transactions were found to the first three months of financial year 2008-09. Therefore, unaccounted transactions were found to only for the period of the first three months. There is no evidence with the revenue that the assessee unaccounted income of Rs. 30,95,700/- from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 712 (Raj) (v) Anand Prakash Soni Vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (jd) (vi) CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) (vii) ACIT Vs Satya Narayan Agarwalla (2002) 255 ITR (AT) 69 (Kol). (viii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala Others 91 ITR 18 (SC). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned CIT(A) have given detailed reasoning for allowing telescopic benefit of income earned and investment made. The learned DR has not controverted the finding of the learned CIT(A), therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld. 7. In the result, the revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
