TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 26/12/2018 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted. 1.2. The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 dated 26/12/2018 also kindly be quashed. 2. Rs. 34,50,000: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the impugned addition made by the AO on account of the unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 of the IT Act in the bank account. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st which, the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 5. At the time of hearing, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee does not want to press ground No. 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal and prayed for dismissal of these grounds as not pressed. The ld DR has raised no objection if these grounds are dismissed being not pressed. Therefore, considering the prayer of the assessee, we dismiss these grounds of appeal being not pressed. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposit U/s 68 of the Act in the bank account of the assessee. 7. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was belongs to assessee's friends' Kana Ram from Sales consideration of his Immovable property. That amount of Rs. 2980000/- on dated 10/04/2013 and Rs. 900000/on-dated 11/04/2013 deposited by Mr. Kana Ram and the same was also withdrawals / paid as per direction of Mr. Kana Ram. Details of payment as under:- 1. That Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma had paid 1st Payment on Direction of Mr. Kanha Ram to Mr. Jagdish Gurjar (Son in Law of Mr. Kanha Ram ) through cheque (130332) on dated 16th April 2013 for amount of Rs. 200000/- the same was paid by Bank to Mr. Jagdish Gurjar on Dated 16th April 2013. For the confirmation of the same transaction we are enclosing copy of Cheque as used for the payment certified by the Bank as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 430000/- paid to Mr. Kanha Ram on dated 17th June 2013 and same is also confirmed by Income Tax Department as per information got in the cross verification from Bank and information provided by the Income Tax Department in Show Case Notice. 6. That remaining amount collected by Mr. Kanha Ram in form of Cash vide cheque no. 130340 on dated 18th June, 2013 and other 50000/- was also received from Mr. Kailash Chand Sharma. That all above cheques are issued in the above persons names and all are relative of Mr. Kanha Ram and kanha ram self. All Cheques are duly singed by Mr. Kailash chand Sharma and counter signed by payment receiver. We also collect all copy of cheques from Bank Department of Income Department my ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affidavit was given by said Mr. Kana Ram to the assessee. It was further submitted by the ld AR that the amount deposited by Mr. Kana Ram was withdrawn/paid as per the direction of Mr. Kana Ram and the details of the buyers have already been given by the assessee in his written submissions which are mentioned in para 4.2 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). 10. From the record, we noticed that in order to verify the statement of the assessee, summons was issued to said Mr. Kana Ram by the ADIT (Inv.), Ajmer. However, in response to the said summons, the reply was filed by one Shri Shailendra Singh Rathore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kana Ram thereby taking a contrary stand and denied the liability of the said Kana Ram. Even during the cours....