2025 (4) TMI 1971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1.1 In this case, the AO passed an order under Section 144 of the Act. Through this order, the Ld. AO added an amount of Rs. 64,60,365/- by way of adding the credit entries in the bank account as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Since there was no compliance before the Ld. AO, the order was passed in an exparte manner. 1.2 The assessee carried this matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed even though a remand report was called for from the Ld. AO in response to a number of fresh evidences filed before the Ld. First Appellant Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have passed a rather brief order with the following critical findings: "5.2. During the appellate proceedings, the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A)) was not justified in confirming the addition of income of Rs. 64,60,365/- which is highly excessive, incorrect and without any basis whatsoever. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant along with supporting evidence. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering our submission that the notice under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ument by stating that all manner of documentation had been provided before the Ld. CIT(A) to show that the assessee was covered under the provision of section 10(26) of the Act and that he had a justifiable source of agricultural income. In this way, the Ld. AR assailed the action of both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). 2.2. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below and stated that there is a clear finding in the impugned order about the unverifiability of the deposits in bank. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and we have gone through the documents filed before us by the assessee. We have also carefully perused the orders of authorities below. In this case, the admitted fact is that befor....