TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained cash deposits in bank. This amount has been added u/s 69A of the Act. (ii) Rs. 22,30,000/- added by way of difference in the market value and the purchase price of a property invested in by the assessee. (iii) Rs. 45,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act, on account of an alleged loan taken from one Shri Randhir Kumar and Shri Pawan Kumar. 1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), whereby he could succeed in regard to all the three major additions, leading to the present appeal being filed by the Revenue. 1.2 The Revenue has approached ITAT with the following grounds: "1. Ground No.1-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. It was stated that the addition of Rs. 22,30,000/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act was justifiable made on the ground of a clear finding by the Ld. AO, that the certificate obtained from Patwari did not appear to be genuine as has been mentioned in clause 3 at page 6 of the Ld. AO's order. It was also pointed out that it was not certain as to what evidence was filed before the Ld. AO by the assessee, since the paper book available before this Bench does not carry the necessary certificate as before which of the lower authority a particular document was filed. It was also pointed out that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) are extremely cryptic as would be evident from the fact that a few lines have been mentioned in para 6.2.3 at pages 11 and 12 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itself shows that this was the result of regular business activities. It was stated that the assessee was selling bananas on whole sale basis and since most of sales were in cash, hence there were substantial cash deposit in the bank account. The Ld. AR pointed out the profit and loss account etc. in this regard, and stated that the business had been going on for quite some time and in the immediately preceding year and the immediately succeeding year, ITR returns have been filed after disclosing business income. It was the submission that due to the ignorance and carelessness of the tax consultant, the assessee has fallen in error in terms of a wrongly filed Income Tax Return. It was the submission that for the mistake of the tax consultan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted to be proved. However, it is clear that the fact of Shri Randhir Kumar obtaining a term loan, which was allegedly on passed on to the assessee, is not borne out from the evidences before us to the extent that whether at all such papers were before the Ld. AO. Regarding the addition of Rs. 22,30,000/- once again, we find that neither of the authorities below have discussed at length as to whether the documents available with the assessee have been carefully examined, either before making the addition before the Ld. AO or even before granting relief to the assessee by the Ld. /CIT(A). Regarding the claim of business income, due to which the amount of Rs. 92,44,000/- is being justified, we find that not only was no business income disclos....