TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) erred in confirming the order of assessment in part, though the order of assessment is opposed to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray V/s. Commissioner of Income tax, reported in 191 ITR 634. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 500,000/-, the demand draft purchased by the M/s. Sangameshwara Enterprises, Gulbarga in the name of Excise Commissioner, on the ground that, no PAN number is quoted in the confirmation letter, though copy of the assessment order of the said firm is filed. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the demand draft purchased by Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anks by above persons, no addition is called for in appellant's case. 9. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is opposed to law and no adverse finding is held in respect to confirmation letters, the additions are not sustainable. 10. Sustenance of additions in part by the learned CIT (A) is opposed to decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court. 11. The levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are not warranted. Appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add/modify/delete any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing". 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Excise Contractor, filed his return of income for the AY 2001-02 declaring t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) for the detailed reasons recorded in the appellate order dated 30-11- 2017 has allowed relief to the extent of Rs. 46.00 lakhs out of total addition of Rs. 68.00 lakhs and the balance addition of Rs. 22.00 lakhs in respect of 5 persons has been confirmed on the ground that although, assessee has filed confirmation letters but has failed to mention Pan numbers in respect of those parties, thereby failed to prove the source. 3. Being aggrieved by the ld.CIT (A)'s order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 22.00 lakhs in respect of 5 parties on the ground that no pan numbers were g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 lakhs, the details of DD and source for raising the amounts and if the DD numbers tally with the list given by the AO at page-8 of his order and provide details of account from which the money for DD were drawn, the in our opinion, additions would not stand. If we go through the observations of the Tribunal, it is very clear that the Tribunal has concluded the issue of applicability of provisions of sec.68 or 69A of the Act, without allowing further scope to challenge the issue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, there is no merit in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the provisions of sec.68 or 69A of the Act has no application to the impugned amounts. As regards the additions made towards the DDs taken from cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty has confirmed DD amount along with his pan number and said DD was returned back to the person immediately after the bidding. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the assessee has satisfied the conditions as per the direction of ITAT to establish the source of income and hence, addition made towards DD taken from Shri N.R.Veerappa amounting to Rs. 5.00 lakhs is unwarranted and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition made towards DD received from Shri N.R.Veerappa. As regards the DD taken from Shri U.G.Rohit (U.G.Rajput), the assessee has filed confirmation letter from the party but failed to mention his pan number to prove that he is having sufficient source of income to establish his capacity to issue DD amount....