IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2000/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 DATE OF HEARING:7.1.11 DRAFTED:12..1.11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), 7 TH FLOOR, NATURE VIEW BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD V/S . SHRI SUNIL A BHARAMBHATT, 14, KRUSHNAKUNJPARK SOCIETY, KATHWADA ROAD, MAHAVIR NAGAR NARODA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAYPB9034D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SMT. SUMIT KAUR, SR-DR RESPONDENT BY:- NONE (ADJOURNMENT PETITION REJECTED) O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO . CIT(A)- XXI/342/WD.15(4)/09-10 DATED 16-03-2010. THE ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-15(4), AHMEDABAD U/S143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 31-12-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ACCEPTING THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY AND DELETING AD DITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G EFFECTIVE GROUNDS 1 & 2 :- ITA NO.2000/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-15(4) ABD V. SH. SUNIL A BHRAMBHATT. PAGE 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,41,480/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT RELYING ON THE WRITTEN SUB MISSION OF THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THOUGH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED IN HIS OR DER THAT THE A.O SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED PEAK CREDIT THEORY BUT AT THE END HE HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS APP EARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE EITHER DIRECTED THE A.O TO EXAMINE AND ADOPT PEAK CREDIT THEORY OR HE SHOULD HAVE DE CIDED AFTER WORKING OUT PEAK CREDIT IN APPELLANTS CASE. 3. AT THE OUTSET LD. SR-DR, SMT. SUMIT KAUR POINTED OUT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN PARA-6 , WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE LD. AR. I AGREE WIT H THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, HENCE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.13, 41,480/-. IN VIEW OF THIS, LD. SR-DR STATED THAT CIT(A)S ORD ER IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, HENCE REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A ) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. LD. SR-DR FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN THE ISSUE CAN BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE PEAK CREDIT THEORY AS THIS CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RE GARD TO DEPOSITS OF VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. WE FIND THE PLEA OF LD. SR-DR IS QUI TE REASONABLE. HENCE, WE REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNM ENT AND SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE PLEA TAKEN BEFORE CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, WE SET ASIDE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13/01/2011 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (MAHAVIR SIN GH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, ITA NO.2000/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-15(4) ABD V. SH. SUNIL A BHRAMBHATT. PAGE 3 DATED : 13/01/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD