TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the appeal filed by the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.1226/Ahd/2011. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,00,850/- made on account of unaccounted sales. 2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income tax(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify the contentions of the assessee regarding addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- made on account of bogus cash-credit, in contravention of Sec.251. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo divisions of business. 4.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that before the AO the copy of Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet of the assessee Shri Paresh C.Shah was filed. He submitted that the copy of bank statement as stated and the copy of ledger account of Jai Jinendra Enterprise from whom the assessee has purchased goods and those documents were also enclosed with the paper-book of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- "2.2.1 As seen from his account No.0811 0010 002123 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, cheque payments were made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 8,00,850/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 6.1. The above finding on fact of the ld.CIT(A) is that as against total deposits (cash + cheque) made of Rs. 16.62 lakhs in the bank account withdrawals of Rs. 16.63 lakhs were made. The AO without controverting the submissions/evidence furnished by the assessee treated the total cash deposits as income of the assessee. The AO did nothing to demonstrate that the purchase of retail business had been accounted for in the purchase of whole sale business. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue by placing any material on record. Under these facts, we do not any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oses." 8.1. It is submitted that the while giving appeal effect the AO had again sustained the addition which were subject matter of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition. Against that order, the Department has not filed any appeal. So far as the action of the ld.CIT(A) in restoring the issue back to the file of AO for verifying the assessee's contentions that the show-cause notice was issued is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit in the case. However, the issue was sent back to the file of AO to the extent of verification whether the show-cause notice was issued or not. In the paper-book, the assessee has enclosed the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 13/07/2012, wherein the ld.CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard, the appellant has rightly placed reliance on Sunil Dua v/s. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 413(Del.) In view of the above facts, I am of the considered view that loans of Rs. 1,08,000/- from these persons should also be accepted. It will be worthwhile to mention here that my predecessor in appeal No CIT(A)-XI/712/08-09 dtd.28-02-2011 has also allowed appeal on this issue subject to verification. In view of the above, I hold that loans to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000/- should be accepted. Accordingly, the A.O.is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,60,000/-. This ground of appeal is allowed." 8.2. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue as also not pointed out that whether any appeal has been filed against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 332 ITR 306. 4. The respondent (cross objector) in the said matter reserves the right to add, amend, alter any of the grounds of cross objections before the final hearing. 9.1. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press ground Nos.1 & 3 of the CO and, therefore, the same are dismissed as such. 10. So far as ground No.2 is concerned, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below have no power to verify the cash credit where the provisions of section 44AF of the act are applicable. 10.1. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR submitted that there is no Bar u/s.44AF of the Act that Revenue Authorities cannot verify the cash credit as stated by the ld.counsel for the assessee. 11. ....