TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I.T.A.No.2880/Chny/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made u/s.68 by the Assessing officer when the assessee has not produced the Name, Address & PAN of the so called parties/Commission agents during the assessment proceedings? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made u/s.68 by the Assessing officer when the assessee has not proved the cash deposit but changed its stand that the payments were received from various parties and commission agents when such ledger accounts were not maintained by the assessee?" 2. We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem ['CIT(A)' for brevity]. The CIT(A) called for a remand report, which was submitted by the Assessing Officer and after taking note of the remand report, the assessee was given partial relief and the addition to the extent of Rs. 4,67,11,382/- was deleted and the appeal was allowed in part. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable. Though such was the finding rendered by the Tribunal, before us, the Revenue has raised the aforementioned Substantial Questions of Law, which pertain only to the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 of the Act....