TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted the passing of a separate order by the AO before espousing the assessment on merits. It is further pertinent to note on a perusal of the grounds taken before the ld. CIT(A) that no such issue was taken up. The ld. AR has not invited our attention towards any material divulging the raising of objections before the AO against the initiation of re assessment proceedings. In such circumstances, there could have been no occasion for the AO to pass a separate order disposing the objections to the re-assessment. We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal. Addition being 15% of various expenses as the assessee failed to produce the supporting details like bills, vouchers etc. - HELD THAT:- Once the basic amount is added back as unexplained investment then the disallowance @15% made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is at higher side and therefore, we restrict the disallowance @5%. Thus, the assessee gets the relief patially. We order accordingly. Thus, ground raised in appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.2544/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2020 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Laliet Kumar, JM For the Assessee : Shri M.K. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only that the AO failed to pass a speaking order in response to Grounds before AO but initiated action under S. 147 without recording satisfaction to initiate action u/s.147 which goes to the root of the matter and Ld. AO issued the notice u/s.148 to conduct deep verification of opening and closing balances which needs deep verification. This is contrary to verdict of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter. The assessment being illegal and without jurisdiction be quashed. 3. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has drawn our attention to Para 19 of the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer had recorded that during the course of assessment, the assessee has failed to provide any evidence and source of investment in the property purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions given by the assessee has accepted the saving available with the assessee for an amount of ₹ 3,00,000/-. However, he had held that the remaining amount of ₹ 6, 61,000/- invested by the assessee in purchase of immovable property remains unexplained. Hence, the AO had made the addition of ₹ 6,61,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is dismissed. 8. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 pertains to the re-opening of assessment proceedings and in this regard, the assessee has filed modified ground of Ground No.3 which is extracted herein above. 9. The Ld. DR has submitted that this issue has been already adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in the matter of assessee in ITA Nos. 2543, 2187 2545/PUN/2017 for the assessment years 2008-09, 2013-14 and 2014-15 dated 09.05.2019 and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune has decided this issue against the assessee. 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the judgment of the Hon ble High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court have not been considered while deciding this issue. 11. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Pune in the case of assessee in ITA Nos.2543, 2187 2545/PUN/2017 (supra.) has dealt with the identical issue vide Para 11 and 12 which are reproduced to the following effect: 11. The assessee has also challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the AO failed to obtain sanction before the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect: 6. In ground No.3, the appellant is aggrieved against addition of ₹ 92,482/- being 15% of various expenses as the assessee failed to produce the supporting details like bills, vouchers etc. In the grounds, it has been submitted that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance as no books were maintained. 6.1 I do not find any merit in the argument taken particularly when the appellant himself is admitting that no details or books were maintained. I accordingly confirmed the AO s action in disallowing 15% of the expenses at ₹ 92,482/- 15. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the lower Authorities. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and making disallowance @15% is not emanating from the record and if we look at the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the Assessing Officer made the disallowance based on estimate basis which comes to ₹ 92,482/-. In our view, once the basic amount of ₹ 6,16,000/- is added back as unexplained investment then the disallowance @15% made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
