The assessee filed the present Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal dated 15.05.2015. 2 M.P. No.90/Mds/15

2. Shri M. Karunakaran, the Ld.counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals), wherein the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to make addition of peak credit. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), more particularly at page 5, the Ld.counsel submitted that while directing the Assessing Officer to work out the peak of the cash deposit in the bank account, he himself computed the peak credit in the first appellate order. The computation made by the CIT(Appeals) is not correct. The only grievance of the assessee, according to the Ld. counsel, is that the peak deposit has to be computed correctly. Since the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer by working out the peak credit wrongly, there is an error in the order of this Tribunal dated 15.05.2015.

3. On the contrary, Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that this Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, found that the claim of the assessee that the money withdrawn from Tuticorin was used to be deposited in Chennai in the very same S.B. account was not believable. However, this Tribunal found that since the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to take only the peak credit, there cannot be 3 M.P. No.90/Mds/15 any grievance to the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Hence, there is no error much less prima facie error in the order of this Tribunal dated 15.05.2015.

4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the petitioner, the CIT(Appeals) ultimately directed the Assessing Officer to work out the peak of the cash credit in the bank account by reducing the withdrawals made through two employees, as the source for subsequent cash deposit in bank account. Thereafter, the CIT(Appeals) himself worked out the peak credit to the extent of `20,27,531/-. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. This order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.05.2015. Therefore, it is obvious that bare reading of the CIT(Appeals)s order shows that the peak credit worked out by the CIT(Appeals) is only on approximate basis. After approximately working out the peak credit to the extent of `20,27,531/-, the CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the same. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that as directed by the CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer has to work out the correct peak credit, after 4 M.P. No.90/Mds/15 giving an opportunity to the assessee. It is clarified that the working made by the CIT(Appeals) is only on approximate basis as it is apparent from the order of the CIT(Appeals). Merely because the order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed, it does not in any way mean that the peak credit approximately computed by the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed. The order of the CIT(Appeals) is confirmed to the extent the direction given by the CIT(Appeals) to add only the peak of the cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, the computation made by the CIT(Appeals) is subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer shall verify the peak of the deposits and compute peak of the cash credit correctly after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5. With the above observation, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 11 th September, 2015 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (. ) (... ) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) /Accountant Member  /Judicial Member /Chennai, 5/Dated, the 11 th September, 2015. Kri. 5 M.P. No.90/Mds/15 / *67 87/Copy to:

1. */Petitioner

2. *,- /Respondent

3. 9 ()/CIT(A)

4. 9/CIT

5. 7 */DR

6. /GF.