TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et another aspect of the matter, which is, that even though notice was issued to the assessee by an order dated 15.07.2009, despite several opportunities having been granted to the revenue, the service, has not been effected on the assessee. Even on the last date, i.e., 03.08.2011, a further opportunity had been granted to the revenue in that regard. It appears that the assessee remains unserved, as the revenue neither possesses particulars of the fresh address of the assessee nor has the assessee been filing its return for the past six-seven years, as per information received by Mr Sahni from the Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax vide letter dated 01.08.2011; a copy of which has been placed on record. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are forced to examine whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, in the year in issue, i.e., assessment year 1998-99, any substantial question of law arises for consideration. 3. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed in this regard, are as follows: 3.1 The assessee filed his return of income on 30.11.1998, which was followed by a revised return filed on 28.12.1999. During the course of scrutiny it appears that that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of the deposits made. 3.3 The A.O. accepted, however, the submission made on behalf of the assessee that the addition could be made only in respect of fresh deposits made during the current year, and not those which were only renewed during the period in issue. Accordingly, the A.O. proceeded to make an addition amounting to Rs. 46,40,978/- as an unaccounted income of the assessee. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)']. The CIT(A) examined the matter at great length. In paragraph 5 the CIT(A) recorded the errors which the A.O had made according to the assessee. These broadly were as follows: (i) even though the A.O. had accepted that the deposits made by sixteen (16) persons were genuine, the same were included in the addition made by the A.O.; (ii) in case of Mr Manmohan Singh, i.e., the husband of Ns Pamela Manmohan Singh, the deposits made had subsequently been repaid alongwith the interest, to Ms Pamela Manmohan Singh, thus establishing the identity of the depositor(s); (iii) the returned envelopes of Runen Roy was a case of rene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed deposit(s) application forms which, contained full particulars of the depositors. 3.5 Based on the above material placed before the CIT(A), he concluded as follows: "....I have considered the submissions very carefully. The AO's action does call for interference. First, there is no justifiable reason in making an addition in the cases of those 16 persons where the deposits had been accepted as per the AO's own admission. Second, there is no justification in making an addition on account of these deposits which were, merely the renewals of earlier year's deposits which had been accepted as genuine. Third, even in the balance four persons, since, the deposits had been accepted by a/c payee cheque and there is adequate information provided by the appellant, additionally, no case is made out for any addition in the light of judgments supra and in view of the facts and circumstances in each case. The appellant appears to have discharged its primary onus by showing that it accepted the deposits bonafidely from the general public. Addition, which has been made without bringing any supportive material, is not sustainable. The same is deleted...." 3.6 The revenue being ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 1998-99, had furnished details with respect to the deposits, and also acknowledged the fact that since then, money had been returned to them. The fact that these investors had received interest, and that tax had been deducted at source, is also noted in the order of the CIT(A). These findings of the CIT(A) have not been impugned before us. As has been noted in CIT(A)'s order the exercise carried out by the A.O. was so ad hoc that in his enthusiasm he forgot to give credit even for those deposits which, according to him, were genuine. These were deposits pertaining to sixteen (16) persons who had responded to the summons issued by him. These deposits, as per the CIT(A)'s order amounted to Rs. 7,40,000/-, which the A.O. for some curious reason had thought fit to include in the total addition made in the income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 46,40,978/-. 6. In so far as the assessment year in issue is concerned, we are not made any wiser as to which specific entry the A.O. had found fault with, given the fact that names of the depositors were known. It has to be borne in mind that while making an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'I.T. Act')....