Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 351 - AT - Income TaxValidity of initiation of proceedings u/s 147 r.w. 148 Confirmation of loan not made Information regarding purchase of new truck made to AO or not -Opportunity of being heard Validity of assessment proceedings made by AO - Held that:- The assessment order that notice u/s 142(1) dated 19/08/2009 has been issued to the assessee fixing the case on 09/09/2009 - on this date, advocate appeared and requested for adjournment - He was asked to furnish Vakalatnama and the source of investment of loan of ₹ 10 lac given to Shri Satya Prakash Jaiswal along with the documentary evidence and show cause why the amount may not be treated as undisclosed investment and added to the total income of the assessee. The case was adjourned to 30/09/2009 - AO also noted that in the reply, the assessee has mentioned that he has not given any loan to Shri Satya Prakash Jaiswal in AY 2004-05 - The case was adjourned to 18/11/2009 but on this date, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was received - sufficient opportunity was provided by the AO but the same were not availed by the assessee and hence, the assessment proceedings completed by the AO is valid. Material for reopening present or not Held that:- An information was received from Income Tax Officer, Basti that the assessee has given loan of ₹ 10 lac to Shri Satya Prakash Jaiswal during the AY 2004-05, which is not recorded in the books of account filed with the return of income and on this basis, the AO has stated that he has reason to believe that the assessee has given loan to Shri Satya Prakash Jaiswal out of undisclosed income which escaped the assessment and therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 of the Act - the reopening was valid because the AO had reason to believe regarding escapement of income - none of the judgments cited by the assessee is rendering any help to the assessee and the assessee could not give any explanation regarding the investments for which addition was made by the AO on the basis that the additions are not disclosed the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against assessee.
|