TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken by the Revenue read as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,76,79,355/- on account of addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act." 3. Brief facts of the case are Assessing Officer in this case passed an order u/s 144/143 (3) of the Act. He noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He proceeded to hold the difference between deposits in bank account and total turnover as unexplained cash credit. We may gainfully refer to the AO's order in this reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant has explained that he got goods manufactured on jobwork basis and made sales through various stores on franchisee basis. He received interest free security deposits from each franchisee, and dispatched goods to them for sale on credit basis for a specified period; out of each month's sale, the franchisees remitted a fixed proportion, as specified in written agreements, to M/s Osmoss Fashion, and the portion retained by them covered such expenses as shop rent, sales persons' salaries, etc. The appellant received a total amount of Rs.3,42,40,000/- by way of security deposits from a total of 69 parties, and the appellant has furnished the cheque-wise and datewise details of deposits received, photo-copies of the cheques, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings, the addition of Rs.2,76,79,355/- is hereby deleted." 5. Against the above order, Revenue has come up before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that assessee has not submitted necessary documents before AO but has chosen to file the same before the ld. CIT (A), hence he pleaded that the matter should be remanded to the file of AO. 7. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly opposed this. He submitted that the additional documents which were furnished before the ld. CIT (A) were duly remanded to the AO but AO chose not to respond or examine those documents. He pleaded that ld. CIT (A) carefully examined the documents and given a factual finding of facts. Hen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noting that he has already deleted the addition of Rs.2,76,79,355/- in his order as above and for other items on which penalty was levied, he found that it did not come under the definition of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The order of ld. CIT (A) may be gainfully referred to as under :- "The penalty has been levied on the additions made to the total income of Rs.2,79,24,664/- of which the major part of Rs.2,76,79,355/- pertaining to the credits in the bank accounts has been deleted vide my order of even date in the quantum appeal proceedings. Of the balance additions, Rs.38A01/- an account of payment to Reliance Infocomm, has been upheld as the appellant could not identify this payment in his books....