Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ITA NO.4084/Mum/2017

1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,65,00,000/- on account of unaccounted receipts and payments without appreciating the fact that since the said transactions were in the mode of cash therefore no set off or telescoping could be allowed /given to the assessee.

2. The Appellant prays the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Pune may be vacated on the above mentioned issue and that of the Assessing Officer be restores.

2. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in enhancing the income of the appellant by an amount of Rs.2,18,89,564/- in relation to the purchase of land / FSI without affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement as mandated u/s. 251(2) and hence the same is prayed to be cancelled / deleted.

(b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O in addition of Rs.2,18,89,564/- in relation to the unaccounted cash payment for purchase of Dhowli Land found to be noted on seized documents without considering the submission of the appellant that the same was paid out of the unaccounted receipt belonging to the appellant or other family / group members. The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the date wise noting of the amount received on sale of Dhowli Land was found to have been noted on the seized material and thus, ought to have allowed benefit of telescoping.

3. Your appellant craves the liberty to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the above ground(s) of appeal.

ITA NO.6863/Mum/2018

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the expenditure incurred in cash by the assessee and not recorded in his books of account is not allowable u/s 40A(3)/69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing telescoping benefit to the assessee without appreciating the fact that expenses were made in cash and correlation between source fund and its utilization is not established in this case.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in addition of Rs.80,00,000/- rejecting the explanation and submission of the appellant that the appellant and other group concerns are having huge amount of unaccounted cash receipts found to have been noted on the seized document, which is available for making such payment and thus should have given the benefit of telescoping.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in addition of Rs.3,25,77,250/- rejecting the explanation ;and submission of the appellant that the appellant and other group concern are having huge amount of unaccounted cash receipts found to have been noted on the seized document, which is available for making such payment and thus should have given the benefit of telescoping.