AI Insights
The case involves cross-appeals by Shree Ganesh Realmart Private Limited and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Circle-2, Indore, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The appeals arose from a search operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, conducted on the 'Shri Shankar Plywood & Veener House Group', which included the assessee. The AO made several additions to the assessee's income, which were partially upheld and deleted by the CIT(A). Both parties challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the current appeals. The Tribunal's decision focused on procedural irregularities and the need for a more thorough investigation into the nature of the expenditures claimed by the assessee.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130562 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-10-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
03-10-2023
Assessment Year
2018-2019
Appeal Filed On
26-12-2022
Judgement Text
Page 1 of 23 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, इंदौर Ûयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 30/Ind/2022 Assessment Year:2018-19 Shree Ganesh Realmart Private Limited, Satguru Girls Hostel, Khandwa Road, Palda, Indore. बनाम/ Vs. DCIT, (Central Circle)-2, Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) PAN: AALCS3097H IT(SS)A No. 31/Ind/2022 Assessment Year:2018-19 DCIT, (Central Circle)-2, Indore. बनाम/ Vs. Shree Ganesh Realmart Private Limited, Satguru Girls Hostel, Khandwa Road, Palda, Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.N.Agrawal, AR Revenue by Ms.Simran Bhullar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.10.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 09.06.2021 passed by learned M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 2 of 23 ACIT, Central Circle 2, Indore, [“Ld. AO”] u/s 153A of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee and revenue both have filed the captioned cross-appeals. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that a search u/s 132 was conducted on “Shri Shankar Plywood & Veener House Group” of including assessee on 04.01.2019 pursuant to which notices u/s 153A were issued to assessee for 6 assessment-years 2013-14 to 2018-19 followed by notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). Ultimately, the AO passed separate assessment- orders of all assessment-years u/s 153A. The present appeals relate to AY 2018-19 for which the AO passed assessment-order after making these additions, namely (i) Addition of Rs. 1,45,12,645/-, (ii) Addition of Rs. 9,04,623/-, and (iii) Addition of Rs. 14,17,535/-. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) deleted first two additions but upheld the last addition. Now, both sides are aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), accordingly these cross-appeals before us. Assessee’s IT(SS)A No. 30/Ind/2022: 4. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of addition of Rs. 14,17,535/- made by the AO to the total income of the appellant on account of contract payment made to various parties by treating it as bogus/unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in case of non-abate assessment and that too in absence of any incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,17,535/- made by the AO to the total income of the appellant on account of contract payment made to various parties by treating it as bogus/unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him even when genuineness of the transactions entered into with those parties was duly established with supporting documentary evidences. M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 3 of 23 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,17,535/- made by the AO to the total income of the appellant on account of contract payment made to various parties by treating it as bogus/unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without issuing any show cause notice prior to making the aforesaid addition thereby grossly violating the principles of natural justice.” Ground No. 1: 5. In this ground, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,17,535/- made by AO, in case of non- abated assessment and that too in absence of incriminating material found and seized during search. 6. Basically, this ground is legal in nature. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the search was conducted on 04.01.2019 and AY 2018-19 involved in present-appeal was a ‘completed/unabated year” for the purpose of section 153A. However, on probing the chronology of the events from records, it was found that the original return of income u/s 139 was filed by assessee on 15.10.2018; the notice for scrutiny u/s 143(2) could have been issued upto 30.09.2019; and the search was conducted on 04.01.2019. Therefore, as on 04.01.2019 being the date of search, the department could validly issue scrutiny-notice and take up case of impugned AY 2018-19 for regular assessment. Hence, the AY 2018-19 cannot be said to be a ‘completed/unabated year’ as per judicial rulings available till now. When this viewpoint of Bench was put to the knowledge of Ld. AR, the Ld. AR fairly accepted and agreed that AY 2018-19 is not a ‘completed/unabated year’; in other words it was an ‘uncompleted/abated year”. Accordingly, Ld. AR gave consent of not carrying this ground. In view of fair acceptance by Ld. AR, this ground is dismissed as non-pressed/non-pleaded. Ground No. 2 and 3: 7. In these grounds, the assessee claims that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,17,535/- made by AO in disregard of the M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 4 of 23 submissions made by assessee and without issuing any show-cause notice to assessee prior to making addition. 8. Ld. AR drew us to Page No. 30 of assessment-order where the AO has considered payments made by assessee to following persons (contractors) as bogus and thereby made addition: 1 Shri Govind Cheema 3,44,250/- 2 Shri Vishal Devgirkar 4,24,500/- 3 Shri Gulab Chand Kumau 3,08,175/- 4 Shri Tarun Virwani 3,40,610/- Total 14,17,535/- 9. The AO has dealt this addition in Para 5 / Page 17-31 of assessment- order. The detailed findings given by AO in sub-para 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.12 qua these additions, are as under: (i) Shri Govind Cheema – The AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 3,44,250/- for Bill dated 31.03.2018 of Shri Govind. When the statements of Shri Govind were recorded u/s 131 on 23.11.2020 during assessment-proceeding, he stated that he was employed as ‘Hammal’ with M/s Shiv Shankar Plywood since 2013; that the amounts were transferred in his accounts at the behest of Shri Naresh Navlani & Shri Sunny Choudhary (key persons of the searched group); those amounts were immediately withdrawn in cash by Shri Sunny Choudhary (or withdrawn by Shri Govind himself and handed over to Shri Sunny Choudhary); ultimately Sunny Choudhary used to handover cash to the directors/key persons of Group. The AO also corroborated this from Bank A/c of Shri Govind where the amount was transferred and on the very same day cash was withdrawn. Shri Govind also furnished an affidavit dated 24.11.2020 confirming that his Bank a/c was mis-used by Shri Naresh Navlani. The AO has scanned and re-produced statements and affidavit of Shri M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 5 of 23 Govind in assessment-order. Lastly, the AO also scanned copies of 2 bills raised by Shri Govind, one dated 11.03.2015 related to earlier AY 2015-16 and other dated 31.03.2018 which is impugned in present appeal and noted his observations on those two bills, namely the bills were fabricated; were not signed by Shri Govind; were in two different letter-heads. (ii) Shri Vishal Devgirkar, Shri Gulab Chand Kumau, Shri Tarun Virwani – The AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 4,24,500/- for Bill dated 17.03.2018 of Shri Vishal. He further noted that Shri Vishal is an employee in one entity of the group named M/s Rahul Laminates. Then, he also scanned copies of 2 bills raised by Shri Vishal, one dated 11.02.2015 related to earlier AY 2015-16 and other dated 17.03.2018 which is impugned in present appeal and noted his observations on those two bills, namely the Bills were prepared on computerized letter-head; without any bill no.; there is no service-tax no.; and the two bills are in two different letter-heads. Similar observations have been made qua Shri Gulab Chand Kumau and Shri Tarun Virwani except the difference of dates/amounts of bills. (iii) Then, in Para 5.12 of assessment-order, the AO also observed that all bills were prepared on computer letter-head in identical hand writing; the fonts used and the handwriting were also identical. Accordingly, the AO concluded that there is no doubt that all bills were bogus and fabricated. The AO also noted that one Shri Deepak Kushwah also filed a police complaint at Tejaji Nagar Police Station, Indore against key persons of Navlani Group for mis-use of his bank A/c. Finally, the AO concluded that the assessee has adopted a modus operandi for making cash available for personal use of directors/key persons and for other unaccounted expenses of the Group. With these observations, the AO concluded that the assessee has claimed M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 6 of 23 bogus/unexplained expenses and made addition u/s 69C read with section 115BBE. 10. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the findings of AO and upheld addition. 11. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee assailed the orders of lower-authorities from various angles, fundamental/legal as well as factual. Firstly, we would like to summarize the fundamental/legal contentions raised by Ld. AR: (i) It is submitted that before passing assessment-order, the AO issued notice dated 01.12.2020 u/s 142(1), copy at Page 68-73 of Paper- Book, with following query: “4. During the assessment-proceedings, you have submitted bank account statement of the company. After anlaysis of bank account statement, it was found that you have made payment to various persons through RTGS/Cheque. In this regard, you are requested to please furnish the year-wise ledger account, bill raised by these persons against which the payment has been made, nature of payment and copy of work contract including PAN details in respect of the following persons:- XXXX (not re-produced for brevity)” Ld. AR submitted that the AO simply asked the assessee to provide certain information of contractors which the assessee adequately furnished vide Para No. 3 of reply-letter dated 15.02.2021, copy at Page No. 74-86 of Paper-Book. As required by AO, the assessee submitted details of PANs, ledger accounts, copies of all bills to AO, copy at Page No. 87-120 of Paper-Book. Thereafter, the AO straightaway made addition without making any further query and without show-causing assessee. Ld. AR submitted that this a gross violation of the principle of natural justice that the AO has drawn heighted conclusions against assessee even without raising any voice before assessee and without enabling the assessee to file reply. (ii) It is submitted that the AO has recorded statement of Shri Govind Cheema at the back of assessee without confronting assessee and M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 7 of 23 without providing opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Ld. AR also referred to Q.No. 8 of the statements of Shri Govind where he was interrogated by AO to explain as to why he left the job of M/s Shiv Shanker Plywood. In reply, he stated that he used to do unloading work and once he committed mistake in unloading; hence he was scolded, slapped and removed from job. Ld. AR strongly submitted that this reply by Shri Govind is sufficient enough to reveal that Shri Govind was hostile qua assessee. Therefore, his statements were certainly prejudiced and not reliable. In any case, Ld. AR claimed, the AO was grossly wrong in relying upon statements of Shri Govind without confronting assessee. Replying upon the decision in Anand Chauhan Vs. CIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 294 (Himachal Pradesh), Ld. AR urged that the AO’s action is not sustainable. (iii) It is submitted that the AO has recorded statement of only one person i.e. Shri Govind. As far as other contractors/persons are concerned, the AO has not made any iota of enquiry from those contractors/ persons and still made disallowance. This again is absolutely wrong. (iv) It is submitted that the AO has made addition u/s 69C read with section 115BBE. Ld. AR submitted that section 69C is applicable where the source of expenditure is not explained. In the present case, the assessee has recorded expenditure in books of account, therefore the source is very much explained. In such a situation, Ld. AR claimed, how section 69C is applicable is beyond his understanding. 12. Apart from above legal/fundamental contentions, Ld. AR raised the factual/other contentions as under: (i) It is submitted that the AO has compared two-sets of bills of all 4 contractors, one related to earlier AY 2015-16 and other related to AY 2018-19. When the bills were related to two different years at a time- gap of about 3 years, it is quite natural that there would be difference M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 8 of 23 in letter-heads, writings, etc. Therefore, the AO has wrongly made an adverse conclusion. (ii) It is submitted that all bills are duly signed and signatures on all bills (contractor-wise) were same and there is no difference. Therefore, the adverse finding given by AO that the bills are not signed or there is a difference in signature, is factually wrong. (iii) It is submitted that those contractors were also employees in searched-group. There is no prohibition in law that the persons who are employees cannot work as contractors; the lower-authorities have unnecessarily made adverse conclusion on the basis of this fact. (iv) It is submitted that the assessee has made all payments through cheques and deducted TDS. (v) It is submitted that the work done by those contractors at the site has never been disputed by AO. When the work is not disputed, how can AO make disallowance? 13. With these submissions, Ld. AR strongly contended that the AO has made addition which is not sustainable from any angle; hence the same must be deleted. 14. Per contra, Ld. DR relied heavily upon the orders of lower-authorities. She submitted that the both of the lower-authorities, from a careful analysis of the facts and evidences especially the statements and affidavit of Shri Govind Cheema, have found that the assessee has applied a modus to record bogus expenses in books and received cash for personal use by directors/key persons. Therefore, the addition made/upheld by lower- authorities is on a sound basis; the same must be upheld. 15. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities and the documents filed in the paper-book to which our attention has been drawn. After a careful consideration, we find M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 9 of 23 that the AO has done investigation and analysis of facts to discern the modus operandi adopted by assessee for booking of expenses and generating cash. But there is a weightage in certain fundamental/legal aspects raised by Ld. AR. Firstly, Ld. AR is justified in claiming that in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.12.2020, the AO asked the assessee to provide certain information which the assessee furnished. But thereafter the AO has straightway reflected his decision of making addition in assessment-order without even show-causing the assessee qua his understanding of the facts and proposed action. This is a violation of principle of natural justice. Secondly, Ld. AR has a merit in claiming that the AO has recorded statement of Shri Govind Cheema at the back of assessee and used such statement against assessee without confronting assessee and without providing any opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Ld. AR is also claiming that Shri Govind was a disgruntled employee of assessee and his statements were biased. Therefore, we agree that the AO has violated the principle of natural justice by neither show-causing assessee qua the proposed addition nor confronting assessee with the statement/affidavit of Shri Govind Cheema. It is an accepted principle in various judicial rulings including Anand Chauhan Vs. CIT (supra) relied upon by Ld. AR that if the AO violates the principle of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the material in his possession, the irregularity committed by AO could be and must be corrected by remitting the matter. Besides this, Ld. AR is very right in claiming that no enquiry has been done from other 3 contractors, Shri Vishal Devgirkar, Shri Gulab Chand Kumau and Shri Tarun Virwani, and yet the AO has made addition. Looking into these infirmities in the action of AO, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for remitting to the file of AO who shall resolve the assessee’s grievances by making in-depth enquiries qua all contractors and provide sufficient opportunity to assessee to make his submissions and only then, pass order afresh. While doing so, the AO shall consider assessee’s all submissions including those made before us and stay uninfluenced by his previous order. M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 10 of 23 16. We would, at this stage, also like to address one more contention raised by Ld. AR. He has submitted that the invocation of section 69C itself is wrong in present case because the expenditure is already recorded in books of account and the source of expenditure is not at all in doubt. We find the contention raised by Ld. AR is very much correct but, in numerous judicial rulings, it has been vehemently held that mere mention of wrong section cannot give any benefit to assessee. Therefore, the argument of Ld. AR cannot be accepted. Moreover, since we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO, the AO shall take necessary care in this regard while re- framing his order. Revenue’s IT(SS)A No. 31/Ind/2022: 17. The revenue has raised following grounds in this appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal on the basis of additional evidences without affording an opportunity to the AO to give his comments on the same. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,45,12,645/- made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credits in view of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) was required to afford opportunity of examination of the additional evidences filed by the assessee in respect of its claim relating to such evidences? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 9,04,623/- made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of cash deposited in the bank accounts ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the source of such deposits? Ground No. 1 and 2: 18. In these grounds, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in accepting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 11 of 23 1962 and also in deciding appeal on the basis of additional evidences without affording opportunity to AO. 19. Ld. AR for assessee took lead on these grounds and submitted in louder and stronger terms that not a single piece of additional evidence was filed by assessee to CIT(A). He submitted that whatever documents/ evidences were filed to AO during assessment-proceeding, were only re-filed to CIT(A). Ld. AR went on submitting that the Bench should impose cost on revenue for adopting a casual approach in raising such grounds. We have paid our careful attention to the submissions of Ld. AR and seen the order of first-appellate authority. We find these grounds of revenue as devoid of any merit; hence the same are hereby dismissed. Ground No. 3: 20. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,45,12,645/- made by AO u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credits. 21. Ld. DR for revenue carried us to Para No. 3 of assessment-order and submitted that the AO has made addition on the basis that the assessee had received advances from customers which remained outstanding for several years. The AO has taken amount of such advances at Rs. 1,45,12,645/- and made addition u/s 68. Ld. DR relied upon order of AO. 22. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the order passed by CIT(A). He submitted that the CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order and thereafter deleted the addition. The said order is re-produced below for an immediate reference: M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 12 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 13 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 14 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 15 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 16 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 17 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 18 of 23 23. On perusal of order of CIT(A), it is manifest that the Ld. CIT(A) has clearly noted that the amount of Rs. 1,45,12,645/- picked by AO is merely a closing balance on 31.03.2018, which includes opening balances of advances received in earlier years except a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- received during the year from one Shri Aman Prajapati. Thus, the CIT(A) has deleted addition primarily by holding that no addition can be made in current year for the advances received in earlier year. As far as the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- received from Shri Aman Prajapati is concerned, the CIT(A) has given finding regarding genuineness of this receipt. During hearing, Ld. AR carried us to several pages of Paper-Book to demonstrate (Page 107, 115- 116, 125, 127-131) that the observations/findings noted by CIT(A) are very correct and authentic. Ld. DR could not rebut or controvert the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Being so, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of first-appeal; the same is hereby upheld. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. Ground No. 4: 24. In this ground, the revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,04,623/- made by AO u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. 25. Ld. DR for revenue carried us to Para No. 4, sub-Para 4.3 and submitted that the AO has made addition for the reason that the assessee could not establish the source of deposits made in Bank A/c. She relied upon order of AO and urged to uphold addition. 26. Per contra, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that there is a serious mistake in the order of AO. He carried us to Para 4.1 of assessment-order where the AO has noted that the deposit in Bank was Rs. 1,05,000/-. Then, Ld. AR carried us to Para No. 3.1 of the notice dated 01.12.2020 u/s 142(1) issued by AO to assessee wherein the AO queried the assessee about the source of deposit of Rs. 1,05,000/- in bank a/c. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the amount of deposit in bank a/c was Rs. 1,05,000/- only. As far as M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 19 of 23 the figure of Rs. 9,04,623/- picked by AO is concerned, Ld. AR submitted that it was sum total of opening cash of Rs. 7,98,585/- and cash of Rs. 1,06,038/- received back from Shri Sunny Choudhary out of money given to him for deposit of TDS. Ld. AR submitted that the sum of Rs. 9,04623/- is inflow and not outflow. Ld. AR carried us to Page No. 120-121 of Paper-Book where a table showing cash ‘inflow-outflow’ filed by assessee to AO during assessment-proceeding clearly shows these figures. In nutshell, Ld. AR submitted that the correct amount of deposit in Bank A/c was Rs. 1,05,000/- and the same was met out of the sum of Rs. 9,04,623/- available with assessee. Hence, the AO has wrongly made addition. But, however, the CIT(A) has carefully considered this issue in his order and rightly deleted the addition. 27. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities. At first, we re-produce the order passed by CIT(A) in this regard: M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 20 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 21 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 22 of 23 M/s. Shree Ganesh Realmart P. Ltd., Indore IT(SS)A No. 30 & 31/Ind/2022 - A.Y. 2018-19 Page 23 of 23 28. We agree that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) corroborates with the submissions made by assessee before AO during assessment-proceeding. We do not find any infirmity or fallacy in the order of CIT(A); the same is hereby upheld. This ground is also dismissed. 29. Resultantly, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2023. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक /Dated : 31.10.2023 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Other Referred Cases
Anand Chauhan Vs. CIT (2015) 56 taxmann.com 294 (Himachal Pradesh)
Laws Referred To
Income-tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Co-Founder Separation Agreement
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026