Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, case remanded for reassessment.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT for reconsideration of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. The ITAT emphasized the necessity for a proper explanation and directed the assessee to provide the required evidences regarding the difference in the capital account balance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition made under section 68 of the IT Act without proper appreciation of facts.
2. Failure to consider reconciliation statement and evidences furnished.
3. Treatment of accumulated depreciation and rectification of accounting mistake.
4. Rejection of evidences by Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
5. Request for reconsideration of difference in capital account.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without understanding the case properly. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the infusion of capital and the reconciliation statement submitted to support the claim.

2. The assessee submitted that a mistake in accounting led to the difference in the capital account balance. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation provided and treated the difference as unexplained credit under section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that the genuineness of the claim was not adequately proven by the assessee.

3. The Assessing Officer questioned the accumulation of depreciation and the rectification of the accounting mistake. The assessee argued that the rectification was made in the subsequent assessment year. However, the authorities did not accept this explanation and added the difference in the capital account to the total income under section 68.

4. The assessee's appeal was based on the rejection of evidences by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The authorities disregarded the reconciliation provided by the assessee and made additions under section 68. The AR argued that the issue should be reconsidered with the necessary evidences.

5. The ITAT directed the issue to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the need for a proper explanation regarding the difference in the capital account. The ITAT acknowledged the request for another opportunity to clarify the discrepancy and instructed the assessee to provide the required evidences for the explanation. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further review.

---