Sec 69
This query is : Resolved
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
28 April 2014
Dear experts in one of client case for the asst. year 2009-10, CIT (appeals)deleted the addition made by the AO, to the extent of Rs.10 Lacs, on the ground that it should have disallowed by the provisions of sec 40A(3) of IT Act, but the AO made addition as unaccounted investment u/s 69.
Now department has gone for appeal in tribunal asking the assessee to file cross objections in this regard,
Pl advice.
Now department has gone for appeal in tribunal asking the assessee to file cross objections in this regard,
Pl advice.
28 April 2014
Please file cross objection against the direction of the CIT (appeals) as well as for addition under section 69 if you so wish to contest.
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
28 April 2014
Sir, thanks for reply, pl provide me the draft of cross objections in the above case
23 July 2025
In the given situation, where the **CIT (Appeals)** has deleted the addition made by the **Assessing Officer (AO)** of **Rs. 10 Lakhs**, arguing that the addition should have been made under **Section 40A(3)** of the Income Tax Act (pertaining to disallowance of expenses exceeding certain limits when paid in cash), but the AO made the addition under **Section 69** (unexplained investments), and the **department** has filed an appeal to the **Tribunal**—you need to **file cross-objections**.
The **cross-objections** are filed by the **assessee** to challenge the findings or order of the **CIT (Appeals)**, or to defend the deletion of the addition made by the AO.
Here is a **draft** for filing the **cross-objections**:
---
### **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL**
#### **\[Sitting at: \[Location] ]**
**Cross Objection No. \[X]/\[Year]**
**\[Assessee’s Name]**,
**\[Assessee’s Address]**,
**PAN: \[Assessee’s PAN]**
(Respondent)
* **Vs.**
**\[Income Tax Officer or Department Name]**,
**\[Assessing Officer's Designation]**,
**\[Tax Department Address]**
(Appellant)
---
### **CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT**
**Cross Objection on the Appeal of the Department (Filed on \[Date])**
The Respondent/Assessee, \[Assessee's Name], hereby submits the following **cross-objections** against the **appeal** filed by the **Revenue Department** (Appellant) in the present case for the Assessment Year **2009-10**:
### **FACTS OF THE CASE**:
1. The **Assessing Officer (AO)** had made an addition of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** in the assessee's income for the AY 2009-10, alleging that this amount was an **unexplained investment** under **Section 69** of the **Income Tax Act, 1961**.
2. On appeal, the **CIT (Appeals)** deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the addition should have been made under **Section 40A(3)** (disallowance for payments made in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-), instead of under **Section 69** for unexplained investment.
3. The **Revenue Department** has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) and seeking reinstatement of the addition made by the AO.
---
### **CROSS OBJECTIONS**:
1. **Ground 1: Challenge to Deletion of Addition by CIT (Appeals)**
The **CIT (Appeals)** has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO under **Section 69**. The CIT's finding that the addition should have been made under **Section 40A(3)** is in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that any cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- made for the purpose of business or profession is to be disallowed under **Section 40A(3)**. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) should be upheld as it is based on a proper understanding of the law and facts of the case.
2. **Ground 2: Addition under Section 69 (Unexplained Investment)**
The **AO’s addition** of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** under **Section 69** is completely erroneous, as the facts of the case do not support such a claim. The assessee has **adequate documentation and records** to support the payment made and the source of the investment. The addition under **Section 69** is unwarranted, and therefore, the **order of the CIT (Appeals)** deleting this addition should be **sustained**.
3. **Ground 3: No Unexplained Investment Exists**
Even if the AO had made an addition under **Section 69**, the **assessee has provided satisfactory explanations** regarding the source of the cash payments and the investment in question. The nature of the investment is well documented, and the relevant records have been produced before the AO. The addition made by the AO under Section 69 should not be sustained as the investment is not unexplained in any manner.
4. **Ground 4: Department’s Appeal Should Be Dismissed**
In view of the above facts and legal position, the **appeal filed by the Revenue Department** before the **Tribunal** should be dismissed. The assessee respectfully submits that there is no legal or factual basis for restoring the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made under Section 69, and the **CIT (Appeals)** has rightly deleted the addition in question.
---
### **PRAYER**:
In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that:
1. The **appeal filed by the Revenue Department** may be dismissed.
2. The **order of the CIT (Appeals)** deleting the addition of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** may be upheld.
3. The **cross-objections** filed by the assessee may be allowed, and the decision of the CIT (Appeals) should be sustained in its entirety.
### **Verification**:
I, the undersigned, \[Assessee's Name], verify that the contents of this Cross Objection are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: \[DD/MM/YYYY]
Place: \[City, State]
Signature of the Assessee: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name: \[Assessee's Name]
PAN: \[Assessee’s PAN]
---
### **Notes:**
* You may need to adjust the **grounds** depending on the specifics of the case and the factual matrix.
* **Cross-objections** are meant to defend the findings of the **CIT (Appeals)**, so it should focus on sustaining the **CIT's order** and countering the department’s appeal.
Let me know if you need any further assistance or clarification on this!
The **cross-objections** are filed by the **assessee** to challenge the findings or order of the **CIT (Appeals)**, or to defend the deletion of the addition made by the AO.
Here is a **draft** for filing the **cross-objections**:
---
### **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL**
#### **\[Sitting at: \[Location] ]**
**Cross Objection No. \[X]/\[Year]**
**\[Assessee’s Name]**,
**\[Assessee’s Address]**,
**PAN: \[Assessee’s PAN]**
(Respondent)
* **Vs.**
**\[Income Tax Officer or Department Name]**,
**\[Assessing Officer's Designation]**,
**\[Tax Department Address]**
(Appellant)
---
### **CROSS-OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT**
**Cross Objection on the Appeal of the Department (Filed on \[Date])**
The Respondent/Assessee, \[Assessee's Name], hereby submits the following **cross-objections** against the **appeal** filed by the **Revenue Department** (Appellant) in the present case for the Assessment Year **2009-10**:
### **FACTS OF THE CASE**:
1. The **Assessing Officer (AO)** had made an addition of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** in the assessee's income for the AY 2009-10, alleging that this amount was an **unexplained investment** under **Section 69** of the **Income Tax Act, 1961**.
2. On appeal, the **CIT (Appeals)** deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the addition should have been made under **Section 40A(3)** (disallowance for payments made in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-), instead of under **Section 69** for unexplained investment.
3. The **Revenue Department** has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) and seeking reinstatement of the addition made by the AO.
---
### **CROSS OBJECTIONS**:
1. **Ground 1: Challenge to Deletion of Addition by CIT (Appeals)**
The **CIT (Appeals)** has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO under **Section 69**. The CIT's finding that the addition should have been made under **Section 40A(3)** is in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that any cash payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- made for the purpose of business or profession is to be disallowed under **Section 40A(3)**. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Appeals) should be upheld as it is based on a proper understanding of the law and facts of the case.
2. **Ground 2: Addition under Section 69 (Unexplained Investment)**
The **AO’s addition** of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** under **Section 69** is completely erroneous, as the facts of the case do not support such a claim. The assessee has **adequate documentation and records** to support the payment made and the source of the investment. The addition under **Section 69** is unwarranted, and therefore, the **order of the CIT (Appeals)** deleting this addition should be **sustained**.
3. **Ground 3: No Unexplained Investment Exists**
Even if the AO had made an addition under **Section 69**, the **assessee has provided satisfactory explanations** regarding the source of the cash payments and the investment in question. The nature of the investment is well documented, and the relevant records have been produced before the AO. The addition made by the AO under Section 69 should not be sustained as the investment is not unexplained in any manner.
4. **Ground 4: Department’s Appeal Should Be Dismissed**
In view of the above facts and legal position, the **appeal filed by the Revenue Department** before the **Tribunal** should be dismissed. The assessee respectfully submits that there is no legal or factual basis for restoring the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made under Section 69, and the **CIT (Appeals)** has rightly deleted the addition in question.
---
### **PRAYER**:
In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that:
1. The **appeal filed by the Revenue Department** may be dismissed.
2. The **order of the CIT (Appeals)** deleting the addition of **Rs. 10,00,000/-** may be upheld.
3. The **cross-objections** filed by the assessee may be allowed, and the decision of the CIT (Appeals) should be sustained in its entirety.
### **Verification**:
I, the undersigned, \[Assessee's Name], verify that the contents of this Cross Objection are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: \[DD/MM/YYYY]
Place: \[City, State]
Signature of the Assessee: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Name: \[Assessee's Name]
PAN: \[Assessee’s PAN]
---
### **Notes:**
* You may need to adjust the **grounds** depending on the specifics of the case and the factual matrix.
* **Cross-objections** are meant to defend the findings of the **CIT (Appeals)**, so it should focus on sustaining the **CIT's order** and countering the department’s appeal.
Let me know if you need any further assistance or clarification on this!
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- EXPENSES OF COMMISSION AGENTS
- RCM invoice related QRMP
- WHO WILL PAY TDS UNDER SECTION 194IA?
- MAT Credit Availability
- Late fee CMP-08 FY 2021-22
- Mismatch in gstr-1 and eway bill invoice no
- Clarification Regarding Tax Deduction at Source on Receipt Against Issuance of Privilege Voucher
- GST TDS on metal scrap
- ITC Inter head difference
- 80CCD(2) of IT ACT
Trending Online Classes
-
Input Tax Credit, GST refunds and Recovery of refunds- Roadblocks and way outs
CA Nipun Arora03 September 2025 -
GST LIVE Certification Course - 43rd Weekdays Batch(With Govt Certificate)
Industry Expert15 September 2025
CAclubindia
