2022 (11) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....") relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law, equity. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of re-opening of assessment as reopening was made without independent application of mind and relying on the information receive from DDIT (Inv.) 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reopening of assessment in absence reason for re-opening recorded by the Ld.AO 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and fact in upholding addition made by the Ld.AO u/s.69 of Rs.23,91,095/- 5. The appellant craves liberty to add, amends, alter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this fact has made the addition in the hands of the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report from the AO who submitted that the addition has been made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act but inadvertently the section 69 was mentioned in the Assessment Order. According to the AO, the merely mentioning the wrong section doesn't make the addition un-sustainable. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: The appellant plea that A.O has made addition u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment and sec. 69 can only be invoked when appellant makes an investment, while in the captioned assessment, the assessee had not made any investment, assessee ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he addition made by the AO is held to be in order and therefore, the addition of Rs. 23,91, 095/- is confirmed. Thus, the ground of the appellant is dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 75 and made the various contention including the contention that the FDRs were made in the earlier Assessment Years. Therefore, if any addition is to be made that has to be made in the year in which such FDRs were created. It is known that the bank account of the assessee was credited on account of maturity of the fixed deposits and the amount of maturity of the fixed deposit does not represent the income as it comprises the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been used for the purpose of the FDR and the same can only be brought to tax and that too in the year in which such FDR were created. Thus, after considering the necessary fact as discussed above, I set aside the findings of the of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 11. As the assessee has succeeded on merit, I do not find any reason to adjudicate the other ground of appeal raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Hence this ground becomes infructuous and thus dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 13. Now coming to the ITA No. 1361/Ahd/20....