9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the assessee had sufficient cash balance during the relevant financial year as evidences by the cash book. We further note that the AO made the addition based on assumption and conjecture without concrete evidence to support the claim cash deposit were unexplained. The Learned CIT(A) properly examine the facts and found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance to explain the deposits. CIT(A) decision to delete the addition under Section 68 of the Act is well founded. Moreover, the tax effect in the present case is below threshold specified by the CBDT s Circular and the case does not fall under any exceptional category. The Revenue appeal is thus not maintainable on this ground as well. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant craves to leave to make any amend, addition, alternation modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative stated that there is a delay of 79 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. A condonation petition has been filed explaining the reasons for the delay. We after considering the submissions made in the petition, find that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and we proceeded to decide the appeal on its merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 10.08.2017 for the A.Y. 2017-18 by declaring total income of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the assessment stage regarding the cash deposits. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative contend that the Learned CIT(A) had erroneously deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act. He argued that the unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period were not properly explained by the assessee, therefore, the addition was justified. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the case fell under exceptional clause 3.1 of the CBDT s Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15.03.2024 as it involved accommodation entries. Hence, the Revenue s appeal was maintainable despite low tax effect. 8. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative argued that the Assessing Officer ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
