IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM ITA No.2560/Kol/2013 (Assessment Year :2009-2010) ACIT, Circle-3, Asansol Vs. Shri Rahul Kumar Saraf, 14A, Paper Box Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400093 PAN/GIR No. : AXWPS 8240 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Revenue by : None Assessee by : Shri Dilip Loyalka, Advocate Date of Hearing : 13/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 O R D E R PER M.BALAGANESH, AM This appeal of assessee arises out of order of Learned CIT(A), Asansol, in Appeal No.307/CIT(A)/Asl/W-3(1)/Asl/11-12, dated 02.09.2013, arising out of order of assessment framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) Asansol u/s.143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 2. only issue to decide in this appeal is as to whether ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting addition of Rs.1,19,37,425/- towards cash deposits in bank account u/s.68 of Act in facts and circumstances of case. 3. Brief facts of this issue is that assessee is proprietorship concern n name and style of M/s Geet Govind Global. assessee is importer and trader of edible and non-edible oil, chemicals, timber, bleaching and Fuller Earth. Ld. AO found that there was cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee for which proper explanation were not 2 ITA No.2560/13 given and accordingly brought sum of Rs.1,19,37,425/- to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Act. 4. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee submitted various details and argued that said deposits in bank account were duly reflected in books of accounts regularly maintained by assessee. Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from ld. AO vide proceedings No.CIT(A)/Asl/13-14/10-11, dated 4-4-2013 as below :- 3 ITA No.2560/13 Ld. AO submitted remand report vide proceedings No.ACIT/Cir- 3/Asl/AXWPS8240B/2013-14/388, dated 8/12-8-2013 as below in respect of impugned addition :- Addition on account of unexplained cash credit for cash deposit in HDFC & DCB bank A/c [Rs.1,19,37,425/-] addition made under this head for unexplained cash deposit in following bank A/c.- DCB A/c. No.01921300000268 Rs.82,77,525/- HDFC A/c.No.06672320000301 Rs.36,59,900/- Ld. CIT(A) relying on said remand report and finding that no adverse comments were given by ld. AO in said remand report proceeded to delete addition made. 5. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us on following grounds :- 1. That, Ld. CIT{A}, Asansol has erred in law and on facts by allowing relief of 'Rs.1,19,37,425/- which was added by Assessing Officer u/s.68 in respect of cash deposits in bank A/c.; 2. That, Ld. CIT{A}, Asansol has erred in law and on facts in deleting entire addition of Rs.1,19,37,425/- since verification of cash deposits in bank accounts of DCB and HDFC was carried out by Assessing Officer in remand proceedings with incorrect cash book having various discrepancies as mentioned in original assessment order dated 26/12/2011; 3. That, Ld. CIT{A}, Asansol has erred in law and on facts in deleting entire addition of Rs.1,19,37,425/- as verification was made by Assessing Officer during remand proceedings with incorrect cash book and thus relief given by CIT{A) is erroneous. 6. None appeared on behalf of revenue. We find that out of 25 cases listed before bench today, revenue has sought adjournment in all cases. Ld. AR stated that this issue is covered by remand report submitted by ld. AO who had accepted contentions of assessee in remand proceedings. In these circumstances, 4 ITA No.2560/13 adjournment petition of revenue is rejected and we proceed to dispose off appeal on merits on hearing ld. AR. 7. We have considered contentions of ld. AR. We find that ld. AO had accepted all contusions of assessee that entire cash deposits were duly accounted for in books of accounts of assessee and, hence, there is no question of adding any amount thereon as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Act. We also found that ld. AO had not given any adverse comments in remand report with regard to contentions of assessee. We find that ld. CIT(A) rightly granted relief by placing reliance on remand report. We hold that ld. AO having accepted to contentions of assessee in remand report ought not to have preferred any appeal before us. We do not find justifiable reason to inter with order of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. 8. In result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 19/10/ 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata; Dated 19/10/2016 Prakash Mishra, . PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. BY //True Copy// ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, ACIT, Circle-3, Asansol v. Rahul Kumar Saraf