2020 (12) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Affidavit stating that the order of CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee's earlier counsel who appeared before the CIT(A). Though he received the CIT(A)'S order, but he has not guide the assessee properly on the next course of action. Further, the assessee was suffering from ill-health caused by hyper-tension, Diabetes & Backpain and was advised rest. More so, the assessee is having physical disability and also residing far from Bangalore at Bidar. Later, the assessee approached the present counsel, Mr. V. Srinivasan, and immediately thereafter within reasonable time the present counsel filed the appeal and thus there was a delay of 158 days in fling the appeal. These are the circumstances for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered satisfactory explanation before the AO and the same was added u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee's explanation was that deposits into bank accounts cannot be considered u/s. 68 of the Act since bank accounts are not books of account maintained by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) agreed with the contention of the assessee and deleted the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act, However, he sustained the addition u/s. 69A of the Act. 8. Now the contention of the ld. AR for the assessee before me is that the deposits were made into bank accounts of assessee from earlier withdrawals and the sources were explained and addition u/s. 69A of the Act cannot be made, without giving mandatory notice u/s. 251(2) of the Act w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pheld under another section of the Act. 10. Now the question before me is whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in sustaining addition u/s. 69A after deleting it u/s. 68 of the Act. This issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Sri Girish V. Yalakkishettar (supra) and relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT, 407 ITR 254 (All), wherein it was held that use of the word "thereon" is important and it reflects that the Tribunal has to confine itself to the questions which arise or are subject matter in the appeal and it cannot be travelled beyond that. The power to pass such order as the Tribunal thinks fit can be exercised only in relation to the matter that arises in the app....