TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 143.(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The word 'Act' herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,38,729/- made by AO on account of un-explained sources of Purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee was given ample opportunity to produce the documents/evidences to prove genuineness of transaction with M/s Krishna Enterprises. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by AO on account o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant assessee has submitted that the delay of 83 days occurred on account of extra time consumed in filing the appeal. In support of its contentions, the appellant has relied upon a catena of judgments including of Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. For the reasons stated in the Assessee's condonation petition attributing delay for 83 days to the circumstances beyond its control, we quote Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. Cross Objection No.14/Del/2026 6. A perusal of the above alludes that the appellant is contesting the validity of notice u/s 143(2) as being bad in law being not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etermine as to the case of category of cases to be taken up for scrutiny assessment and the nature of scrutiny which the High Court has held to be "totally an interdepartmental matter". Thus, in the absence of any other acceptable view, there is no question of preferring a view which is favourable to the assessee. 13. In result the question referred is thus answered in negative and in favour of the revenue. The appeals shall be placed before the regular bench for disposal according to law...." 8. Thus, we have noted that the issue of validity of notices u/s 143(2) on account of their non-conformity to CBDT Instruction dated 23.06.2017(supra), stands decided in favour of Revenue, therefore, is no more res integra. We have also no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Assessing Officer had noted that the assessee had made sale/purchase transactions of Rs. 111.24 lakhs and Rs. 115.38 Lakhs from a party called Krishna Enterprises and who was a non-filer. The ld. Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had deposited fresh time deposits of Rs. 32,02,459/- from Bandhan Bank. The ld. Assessing Officer attempted to conduct enquiries into the affairs of the assessee including enquiries from the verification unit (VU). The ld. Assessing Officer was informed by the VU that M/s Krishna Enterprises was not operating from the given address. Similarly, the assessee did not make satisfactory compliance to the Assessing Officer's query for the time deposit in Bandhan Bank. The ld. Assessing Officer consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention and also submitted details of source of the money. In view of the reply filed the ground of the appellant is allowed. 5.4. The appellant has taken Ground 4 "Because the Learned Assessing Officer wrongly made an addition of Rs. 9,221/-as interest accrued, which was already declared in the Income Tax Return." The appellant has submitted copy of ITR along with computation in support of his contention and in view of the reply filed the ground is allowed. 5.5 Ground number 5 is consequential in nature and hence allowed. 6. In result, appeal of the appellant is allowed." 11. The Revenue through its grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 is contesting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) to delete the additions of Rs. 1,15,38,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see to the notices of the ld. Assessing Officer is clearly made out. From the perusal of order of ld. CIT(A), we have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has clearly recorded in paras 5 to 6 reproduced hereinabove that he is relying upon details and documents produced during the appellate proceedings. There is nothing on record to allude that the ld. Assessing Officer was given an opportunity to consider the impugned documents. The rights of ld. Assessing Officer available under Rule-46A were therefore violated. We have also noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra) is a cryptic, summary order and non-speaking order. There is nothing on record as to how the ld. First Appellate Authority has arrived at his conclusion. Thus, it is a pure case of non-a....