TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [3] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent. " CO no.367/Ahd/2007 "[1] The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad has erred in law as well as on facts of the case in holding that reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was valid and was not bad in law. [2] Your Appellant, therefore, prays that reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, be held invalid and bad at law. [3] Your Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above cross objections. " 2. At the outset, the learned AR on behalf of the assessee sought permission to withdraw the CO, raising grounds relating to validity of reopening of the assessment. The learned DR did not raise any objection to such withdrawal. In these circumstances, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Now adverting to ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs. 4,27,000/- filed on 30-10-2002 by the assessee, in the business of construction, was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Account as pointed out in the aforesaid letter. The assessee also submitted a copy of bank account upto 24-03-2001 to substantiate its claim. It was pleaded that they were in touch with the Bank and would submit further details. Despite seeking further time to furnish the details, the assessee did not submit any reply. The AO, accordingly, issued a show cause as under :- "3. In respect of credit entry of Rs. 2,46,00,000/- on 30.03.2001 and two debit entries of Rs. 58,60,643/- each on 30.03.2001, it has been submitted by you that the entries are not reflected in your account and you have submitted the copy of your account No. 2637 with Suryapur Co-Op. Bank Ltd. This is to be pointed out that you have submitted the copy of Bank statement upto 24.03.2001, whereas the entries are on 30.03.2001. The copy of account obtained from the Bank is enclosed herewith, wherein the entries as pointed out above are mentioned. You are, therefore, provided the final opportunity to explain the entries, i.e. credit entry of Rs. 2,46,00,000/- and two debit entries of Rs. 58,60,643/- each. If no explanation is submitted, it would be treated as you do not have any explanation to offer and the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of the assessee out of its undisclosed sources . 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition in the following terms :- "4.1 The appellant has raised the ground that this addition has been made u/s. 68 of I.T. Act and it is not valid. However, there is no reference to section 68 of I.T. Act in the assessment order while making the addition. The appellant has in the written submissions before me stated the arguments which are summarized as under: (i) The bank account No .. 2637 submitted by the bank to the A.O contained an error and that the correct bank statement was submitted by the appellant which are reflected on page 29 to 32 of the paper book submitted now before me & before A.O. also. (ii) The bank was requested to give copy of account with the appellant and clarify the same. However, no reply was received from the bank and that the bank had orally informed that their record was destroyed on account of flood in Surat in September 2006. (iii) There are thus two sets of bank statements and that the appellant had proved that the bank statement which is produced by them vide letter dated 20-12-2006 was correct. In support of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2000-01. The loan raised is also reflected in the audited accounts at Rs. 1,17,21,286/- and Rs. 1,28,14,874/-. It was claimed that in the original assessment proceedings notice was issued by the A.O. asking the details of account No. 2637. The appellant's books are audited and thus there was no possibility that the entry of Rs. 2.46 crores was missed while preparing the annual account. It was also claimed that the appellant was subjected to search & seizure operation u/s. 132 of IT Act and therefore, it was not possible that such a big entry of Rs. 2.46 crores was missed in the block assessment. If such income was with the appellant it must have been reflected in the appellant's assets found at the time of search & seizure operation carried out by the Department. The appellant referred to the observations of the A.O. and stated that those observations are not correct. (vii) It is further stated that as per section 68 of I.T Act where any income is found to be credited in the books maintained by the assessee for any previous year and the assessee does not offer any explanation about the same or the source thereof or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, it wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctober 2002 and balance amount was paid to the bank by cash. 4.3 I have carefully considered the written submissions and reply filed vide letter dated 17.7.2007 and comments of the Assessing Officer in its remand report. From the above, it is observed that - (i) The addition of Rs.2.46 Crore made u/s.68 of IT Act is based on a credit entry in bank account No.2637 of Suryapur Co. op. Bank Ltd., Surat. (ii) The entry of this 2.46 Crore is not appearing in the books of account of the appellant. (iii) The appellant claims that the bank statement submitted by the bank to the Assessing Officer is incorrect and simultaneously produced the copy of bank statement of Account No.2637 in which no credit entry of Rs.2.46 Crore appears. The appellant has also submitted that Bank Account Nos.2637, 232, 233 and land deal of NUTAN MILL LAND is also considered in detail in original assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of IT Act. The appellant has also submitted a copy of show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer [Page No. 143 to 145 of submission dtd.25.5.2007] dated 17.2.2004 wherein it was specifically asked in question No.(L) that "Detail of cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITD 403 as also the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Krishna vs. CIT, 142 ITR 618(All.).While referring to para-4.3 of the impugned order, the ld. DR contended that that the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition without calling for any report from the AO on the written submissions filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), even when the assessee attempted to co-relate the credit entry of Rs. 2,46,00,000 dated amount of with subsequent entry 8-6-2002 for an Rs. 2,34,76,975/-. Since the assessee did not explain the source of amount of Rs. 2,46,00,000/- credited on 30.3.2001 by the bank in the a/c no. 2637 of the assessee with The Suryapur Co-Op. Bank Ltd., the learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. 5.1 On the other hand, the learned AR on behalf of the assessee while inviting our attention to pages 53 to 56 of the paper book, contended that the bank had issued them a copy of their account on 23-04-2001 [Page 65 of the paper book] wherein no such entry of Rs. 2,46,00,000/- on 30.3.2001 was reflected and closing debit balance of Rs. 1,28,14,874/- mentioned therein on 24.3.2001 is shown in their balance sheet as on 31.3.2001 .. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....official liquidator. The reasons for making entry by the bank on 30.3.2001 have not been explained by the ld. AR nor the ld. DR could throw much light. Instead it was submitted that the bank had claimed that their records were destroyed in floods. Since the relevant entries on 30.3.2001 were made only by the concerned bank authorities in the bank a/c of the assessee while the balance sheet as on 31.3.2001 of the assessee reflected balance as on 24.3.2001, apparently reconciliation of these entries vis-a-vis books of accounts of the assessee does not appear to have been made. Since the said entry would naturally impact the accounts of the assessee even in the subsequent years and there is nothing to suggest that the ld. CIT(A) attempted to reconcile the accounts nor allowed any opportunity to the AO for reconciling the accounts before deleting the addition, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the ld. CIT(A) in consultation with the concerned bank authorities . There is no material before us as to whether or not the written submissions or the details filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A),were confronted to the AO. In this connection, it may be poin....