TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 31st July, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that although the sales were of Rs. 92.07 lakhs, the sales reported were to the tune of Rs. 1.20 Crores. The Assessing Office called upon the Respondent Assessee to explain the difference. The Respondent Assessee pointed out that due to its Accountant's mistake, a bill of Rs. 36.25 lakhs dated 3rd April, 2007 issued to BA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings. In fact, the above sale was reflected as 'sales' in the accounts for the next assessment year which were before the Assessing Officer, yet the same was ignored by the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the amount of Rs. 36.25 lakhs. 6. We find that both the authorities namely - CIT (A) as well as the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from third parties. Thus, the Assessing Officer added these advances to the income. However, the CIT(A) without calling for a remand report deleted the addition. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the CIT(A) was not justified in setting aside the addition of Rs. 13.10 lakhs, attributable to advance received from third parties. In the circumstances, the impugned order merely set aside t....