TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law. In such circumstances, we allow this ground of appeal and set aside the order of CIT(A) sustaining the order of reopening. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 7572/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM For The Appellant : Shri R.S.Khandelwal For The Respondentby : Shri Dr. P. Daniel ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member: The Present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, dated 19.11.2013 for AY 2004-05 on the grounds of appeal mentioned herein below:- The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another: 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants before charging the said interest as required by the principles of nature justice. (b) the charging of interest is not in accordance with law. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is one of the Director of M/s K.N.P. Pvt. Ltd. The Original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 01.08.2006 determining the total income at ₹ 3,21,050/- by accepting the return income. Later on proceeding for reopening the assessment was initiated and after recording reasons by AO an assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed, thereby making additions of ₹ 1,35,34,532/- being the difference in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 1,35,34,532/-. However, the assessee has not shown this loan in his statement of affairs as on 31.03.2004. Further he has stated in the letter dated 28.07.2006 filed before the A.O that he has not taken any loan during the year. In the view of incorrect position of accounting of loan taken by assessee in his account, the difference of ₹ 1,35,34,532/- is required to be treated as undisclosed income of assessee. In the view of above I have reason to believe that there is an under assessment of income to the tune of ₹ 1,35,34,532/- by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fact in return of his income within the meaning of section 147. (S. NATARAJA) Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed of partnership which is at page no. 34. We have also gone through the remand report which is at page no. 38 wherein it has categorically been mentioned by DCIT that in the books of M/s N.H. Securities, it is shown that the firm M/s K. N. Parikh has to pay a sum of ₹ 1,35,34,532/- as on 31.03.04. Therefore prima facie, it is a case of Mistaken identity by the revenue. 10. In this respect, we have put a categorical query to the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue as to how the amount of loan taken by M/s K. N. Parikh (firm) can be considered as income of assessee and in case the amount of loan is not considered as income of assessee then there cannot be any Escapement of Income by the assessee. 11. The Ld. DR failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
