TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], dated 29/12/2017 for the AY 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business ie., agro products, filed his return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 2,49,800/- for the AY 2012-13. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine 'large amount of sundry creditors and capital gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property reported in AIR/CIB'. Subsequently, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 30/03/2015 determining the total income of Rs. 15,07,540/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the additions made by the Ld. AO. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs. 1,96,91,452/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee's Representative filed written submissions relying on various decisions and pleaded that the assessment order be set-aside. Further, the Ld. AR also objected that the Ld. AO has not mentioned the section under which the addition of the outstanding sundry creditors has been made while framing the assessment order. The Ld. AR also placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. AO has questioned 7 creditors produced by the assessee and not satisfied with the reply and treat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om them on oath. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to identify that the period of cash deposits in the bank account is April, 2011 to November, 2011 and the period of Husk yielded is January, 2012 to March, 2012. Hence, the decision of CIT(A) that the sources of cash deposits as profit earned from yielding of husk is not sustainable. Therefore the telescoping made by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,77,000/- against the cash deposit of Rs. 25,10,000/- is not tenable. 4. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing." 4. With respect to Ground no.2 the Ld. DR submitted that the confirmation from 7 creditors is unreliable because no evidence has been produced before the Ld. AO regarding the ownership of the land or lease of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... creditors and provide one more opportunity to the assessee following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO and allow this ground no.2 for statistical purposes. 7. With respect to ground No.3 on the allowance of telescoping of Rs. 8,77,000/- against the cash deposits of Rs. 25,10,000/-, we find it relevant to extract the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) which are extracted herein below: "46. As regards the claim of the assessee in the written submission that he is eligible for telescoping the addition of undisclosed profit from sale of husk of Rs. 8,.77,000/- and addition of estimated income from sale of apartment of Rs. 4,29,750/- into the addition of unexplained cash deposits in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 10 of the appeal are therefore partly allowed." 8. On perusal of the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the telescoping benefit and therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue and hence, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Grounds No. 1 and 4 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. C.O. No. 05/Viz/2022 (In I.T.A. No.05/Viz/2020) (Assessment Year : 2012-13) 11. With respect to the Cross Objection raised by the assessee, there is a delay of 19 days in filing the CO before the Tribunal which is beyond the prescribed ti....