TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal of the assessee arises from the order of Ld. Commissioner of Inc-tax (Appeals)-Valsad dated 26-12-2006 for the assessment year 1999- 00. The assessee has argued the ground No.3, which is reproduced as under:- (3) The learned CIT(Appeals), Valsad ought to have observed that the assessment completed by the AO u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was without supplying the reasons recorded for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property known as M/s. Deep Laxmi Apts. Navsari, at ₹ 71,71,225/- as against the declared cost of construction of ₹ 36,00,000/- by the assessee. The DVO, in his report, has also sated that the assessee has not co-operated and no details were provided at the time of inspection of the property. 4.On the basis of above facts, the proceedings u/s.147 of the I.T. Act were initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sha Deep Developers, on 19.07.2005, along with the notice u/s.142(1) to make assessment on substantive bases for A.Y. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and on protective basis in the case of Deep Laxmi Apartment for A.Y. 1998-99, 99-2000 and 2000-01. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee raised ground No.4, which is reproduced as under:- (4) The ITO, Ward-1, Navsari has erred in making assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in income is escaping assessment in the case of the appellant. The assessment was framed on substantive basis in the case of Deeplaxmi Apartment and subsequently, after the fact having come on surface, the assessment was re-opened in the case of the appellant on substantive basis. Therefore, I find no merits in the contention of the appellant. The Appellant s Ground No.4 is, therefore, Dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usion, it is worth to mention that the assessee had raised grounds challenging the quantum addition, however, since the issue on jurisdiction has been restored back and that legal issue is to be settled first therefore at present at this stage it is not viable to decide these grounds as it was suggested in the case of Rahulkumar Bajaj v. ITO (1999) 69 ITD 1 (SB) (Nag). The other grounds are not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
