2019 (1) TMI 2037

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts." 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed. 4. Ld. D.R. did not object to the aforesaid contention made by the Ld. A.R. but however submitted that considering the facts, the appeal be taken up for adjudication. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal of Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 191/RPR/2011 7. ITA No. 191/RPR/2011 is in the case of Virendra Pandey wherein the assessee has raised following grounds : 1. "That CIT(A) has erred in both fact and in law while confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 147/143(3) by the Assessing Officer which is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and fact in confirming the assessment order on protective basis which is bad in law, illegal and invalid and in which parallel proceedings were neither initiated not was assessment finalized simultaneously along with substantive assessment. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and fact in reaching the incorrect findings in relation to "Possession of money" and th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Income Tax Act 1961. 10. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1((c) of the IT Act 1961. 11. That the assessee craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of hearing. 12. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each order." 8. Before us, at the outset Ld. A.R. submitted that as far as in the case of the present assessee, Shri Virendra Pandey is concerned, the additions have been made in the case of assessee on "protective basis" and in Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi's case the additions have been made on substantive basis. He submitted that when the appeal in the case of Shri Ajit Pramod Jogi (supra) has b....