TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the said addition despite the fact that an amount of Rs. 1,95,000 was withdrawn and re-deposited in the same account, as such the net cash deposit was Rs. 15,15,200/- and not Rs. 17,10,200/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,000 made by the AO on account of trading results, without there being any basis for the same. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing business expenses to the extent of 50% without there being any basis for the same. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned GIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 49,971/- claimed by assessee under Chapter VIA of the Act. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,01,960/- on 5.11.2007. The same was processed u/s. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posits alleging that no explanation in respect of these deposits was offered by the assessee. 3.3 During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee filed various documentary evidences in support of its contention along with an application under Rule 46A. The details filed by the assessee along with Rule 46A application were as follows: (i) Balance sheet and Profit and Loss account of assessee (PB 5- 6) (ii) Copy of cash book for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 (PB 7-18) (iii) Copy of bank book of Oriental Bank of Commerce for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 (PB 19-20) 3.4 The AO objected to the admission of these evidences vide remand report dated 05.03.2012 (PB 21 - 22). The said evidences were, however, admitted by the Ld. CIT(A), holding that these evidences were very essential for the adjudication of the matter. 3.5 At the very outset, it was submitted by the assessee that the net cash deposited by the assessee in its bank account was for Rs. 15,15,2001-, as the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- was withdrawn and then re-deposited by the assessee in its bank account. 3.6 It was further submitted by the assessee that the cash deposited by "&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ram Bandhu Ram(1979) 11 CTR (All) 253: (1980) 122 ITR 68 (All) 3.11 Therefore, in view of the above judgments, the addition, if any, cannot in any way exceed the peak credit appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee. 4. Ground No.3 and 4: 4.1 These grounds deal with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the adhoc additions made by the AO. 4.2 The AO has made addition of Rs. 50,OOO/- on account of trading results declared by the assessee, alleging that no documentary evidences were filed by the assessee in support of the trading results declared in the return of income. 4.3 In this regard, it is submitted that it is a settled law that in the absence of any specific finding, the adhoc additions made by the AO cannot be sustained. Reliance in this regard is placed-on the judgment of this Hon'ble ITAT in the case of DCIT VS. Norma IndiCJ Ltd. in ITA No. 4562/Del/2010 dated 04.12.2015. 4.4 Further reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments: * ACIT vs Amtek Auto Ltd. 112 TT J 455 "19. We have considered the rival submissions, and find that the ground preferred by the Revenue is lacking in substance, inasmuch as, the CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Corpn. 212 Taxation 49 (Del), ITA No. 1809/Del/2005 dt. 11.7.2008 Ground No.5: This ground 'deals with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 49,971/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI - A claimed by the assessee in the return of income. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the said deduction has been claimed by the assessee on account of the L1C premium and the Tuition Fees paid during the year under consideration. The AO has disallowed the said deduction only on the basis that no documentary evidence in this regard was produced by the assessee. It is submitted that the said amounts have been duly paid out of the banking channels and thus, should be allowed to the assessee." 7. In this case, Notice of hearing to both the parties was sent, despite the same, the Ld. DR not appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment by the Department. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, there....