TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nju passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-11 for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 918/Bang/2018 : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,95,000/-, based merely on the written submission of the assessee and accepting that the assessee had sufficient cash balance to deposit in the banks, disregarding the fact that the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits in the bank account, with supporting details/evidences and preparing a cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A) erred in ordering the additions to be reduced to Rs. 1,04,12,000/- vide Para 10 of the appellate order and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, disregarding the fact that the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash payments with supporting details/evidences and preparing a cash flow statement during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,36,61,000/- being additions made on unexplained Cash payments based on the evidence of seized material, wherein, as per the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to K. Manju were found. Subsequently, notice under section 153C was issued to assessee. Assessee filed return disclosing taxable income at Rs. 10,19,690/- on 4/04/2013. The Ld. AO observed that, assessee and his wife are engaged in the provision of film production for several years and are partners in M/s. Lakshmishree Combines. The Ld. AO observed that L. Manju is drawing salary income from the partnership firm, income from house property and also business income from other sources. Ld. AO called for various details in respect of purchase and sale of properties. 3. The Ld. AO was of the opinion that the properties purchased by L. Manju at Kengeri and Hoskerehalli were out of undisclosed income. The Ld. AO treated the same as investment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- made to various people without deducting TDS, Rs. 49,05,000/- was added as assessee could not provide any explanation. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(A) in case of K. Manju observed that assessee had sufficient cash balance to fund deposits into the bank and meet the production expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that provisions of section 68/69 is not enforceable and similarly provisions of section 40A(3) are also not enforceable to the extent of payments made to various technicians. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on submissions made by assessee. In case of Lakshmishree Manju, the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions of assessee and pas....