TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 315/Del/2019 arises against the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi's order in case No. 489/09-10/205/15-16 dated 15.10.2018, in proceedings u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2006-07 and u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2007-08 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. We advert to the assessee's "lead" appeal ITA No. 1762/Del/2011 for A.Y. 2006-07 raising the following substantive grounds: "1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in holding that the appellant did get proper and adequate opportunity to explain his case even though it is admitted by the Assessing Officer that copies of all the papers seized by the CBI authorities were not provided to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his leaves the assessee aggrieved. 6. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue vehemently argues in support of the impugned twin additions that the assessee has neither reconciled the source of mutual fund investments made in the relevant previous year nor he could explain source of the twin cash deposits amounting to Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 49,000/- credited in his bank account on 30.01.2006 and 02.03.2006, respectively. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue's foregoing vehement contentions raised during the course of hearing and see no merit therein. This is for the precise reason that it is admittedly learned Assessing Officer's case that the assessee had invested anything in cash in mutual funds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of the Assessee's income for the subject year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,28,227 on account of short term capital gains. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,02,373 being the redemption amount in various mutual funds. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs. 9,45,049 & Rs. 3,47,100 in respect of deposits in various bank accounts." 9. It is vehemently contended in light of the assessee's pleadings that the learned CIT(A)'s herein has passed a totally non-speaking o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o provision in the IT Act to stay the appellant proceedings on the ground that the criminal proceedings are going on in the case of the assessee in other Court, unless there are specific directions by Hon'ble Court in this regard. Here in the case of appellant, appellate proceedings are going on as per the provisions of IT Act which cannot be stayed in absence of specific directions of the Court and now the criminal proceedings, as mentioned above, have already been completed before Trial Court, hence, there is no justification on the part of appellant raising the grounds for the stay of proceedings. In view of this, the additional grounds taken by appellant are rejected and, therefore, dismissed. 5.3 Now, I come to the substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 in the case of appellant. Accordingly, he recorded the reasons and issued the notice u/s 148 to initiate the reassessment proceedings. All the objections raised by appellant during the reassessment proceedings have been satisfactorily disposed off by AO, as discussed in detail in the assessment order. In the grounds raised, appellant has reiterated the same objections, which were raised during the reassessment proceedings and satisfactorily answered by AO, but nothing has been submitted in support of these grounds to show that there was anything wrong in "the conclusion drawn by AO during the assessment proceedings. 5.4 Further, in respect of the merit of the case also, though the appellant has raised the objections by taking the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in his favour as per the case file during the course of hearing before us. We thus uphold the impugned addition of the cash seized and decline the assessee's former four substantive ground in very terms. 11. So far as the assessee's fifth, sixth and seventh substantive grounds challenging short term capital gains of Rs. 2,28,227/-, redemption from mutual funds of Rs. 4,02,373/- and cash deposits of Rs. 9,45,049/- and Rs. 3,47,100/ -; respectively, are concerned, we note from a perusal of the assessment discussion dated 29.12.2009 (page 16 para 4.1) onwards that he could not rebut the corresponding clinching facts of having derived the said short term capital gains, redemption of the corresponding mutual fund as well as the cas....