I.T.A. NO . 1125 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 1125 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 8 - 09 SMT. MANJULABEN CHAMPAKLAL, ..... ...... . ... . . APPELLANT 8A, PRADAKSHINA APARTMENT , PRATISTHA COMPLEX, PARLE POINT, SURAT 395 007. [ PAN: ABCPM 0998 E ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(3), SURAT. ............... . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION , FOR THE APPELLANT PRADIP KUMAR MA JUMDAR , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 2 5 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 29 . 11 .2016 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2013, PASSE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS : - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,91,0737 - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.20,91,073/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME DEPOSITED IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT IS UNCALLED FOR, UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II AND ALSO THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING VARIOUS SUBMISSION MADE FROM TIME TO TIME. I.T.A. NO . 1125 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) - II OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF APPELLANT AND O UGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.20,91,073 / - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE APPELLANT URGES THAT ADDITION ARE UNCALLED FOR, UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW. 6. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON VARIOUS SUBMISSION MADE FROM TIME TO TIME BOTH BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II. 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY INVITES MY ATTENTION TO ORDER DATED 02.05.201 4 PASSED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSE E S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ONLY PEAK AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED TO ASSESSEE S INCOME UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT . THIS DECISION IS ANNEXED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER 2016 FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. IN ALL FAIRNESS , THEREFORE , L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREES THAT THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DENOVO IN TH E LIGHT OF PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DIVISION BENCH S ORDER DATED 02.05.2014 (SUPRA) I N ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION S AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DENOVO IN THE LIGHT OF MY OBSERVATIONS ABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2016. PBN/* I.T.A. NO . 1125 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUA RD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD