TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w.s. 158BC & 158BD of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised few grounds in its appeal however the cruxes of the issues are that:- i. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the finding of the Ld.AO that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment years falling within the block period before the date of search and thereby added the amount of Rs. 5,10,770/- being the aggregate income disclosed in the return of income stated to have been filed by the assessee. ii. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs. 3,03,125/- towards Recurring Deposit account No.5188 with State Bank of Indore, Royapettah as the unaccounted investment of the assessee. iii. The Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents submitted by the assessee, it was observed that the acknowledgement number did not pertain to the assessee but to different persons. Therefore the Ld.AO opined that the returns filed by the assessee are bogus towards which the assessee strongly objected. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) held the issue in favour of the Revenue by relying on various decisions of the higher judiciaries. 4.1 Before us the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.Revenue Authorities that the lapse on the part of the Revenue to maintain proper records cannot determine the returns filed by the assessee to be bogus. The Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities. 4.2 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings, it was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee had deposited Rs. 3,03,125/- in Recurring Deposit account No.5188 with State Bank of Indore, Royapettah during the block period. The Ld.AO added the same to the undisclosed income of the assessee because the transactions were not accounted in the assessee's books of accounts. The Ld.AO further observed that the assessee had not filed any return of income before the date of search. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the Order of the Ld.AO by agreeing with his view. In similar situation herein above, we have deleted the addition made by the Ld.AO because the Ld.AO had failed to examine the return filed by the assessee and the explanation submitted. We have expressed the similar view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable in the case of the assessee due to rotation of advances and repayments. It appears that the Ld.AO has not examined those aspects. There is every probability that if such exercise would have been carried out the source of the amount utilized in the finance business would have been explainable as the amount utilized in the business would have been much less than the addition made by the Ld.AO. Therefore adhoc addition of the amount mentioned in the entire pro-notes is not justifiable. Further the Ld.AO has also not made any investigation in the market to find out whether any amount borrowed from the assessee was pending to be returned to the assessee. Further the Ld.AO had also not made proper investigation from the borrowers. When ....