TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by AO from Investigation Unit AO had formed belief of escapement of income and thus reopening the re-assessment proceedings was justified. He accordingly upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. As far as, the addition on the merit of Section 68 is concerned, we find that CIT(A) after considering the various case laws cited in the order and after relying on those case laws and facts of the case has upheld the addition made by AO. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to point out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the Grounds of assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 1568/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2022 - Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding reopening action u/s 148 being made in violation to mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated u/s 147 to section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. That on similar facts, the reopening action in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004 - 2005 (ITA 3688/Del/2013 order dated 30.09.2015 C bench New Delhi) has been upheld to be in incorrect which has not at all been been appreciated by learned first appellate authority (FAA). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in giving perverse findings at para 5.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 to amount of Rs. 404,00,000 on account of alleged unexplained share application/ share capital and then giving at para 6.8 totally unjustified and unwarranted findings that amount of earlier years of Rs.215,00,000 (A.Y. 2003-04) Rs.74,50,000 (A.Y. 2004-05) is directed u/s 150(1) to be added in those years. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A gave perverse findings by sustaining wrong addition of Rs. 404,00,000 which amount do not exclusively pertains to extant period and rather substantial amount pertains to earlier years (Rs. 289,50,000) at para 6.7/page 23 of his order and where reasons recorded limitedly pertained to Rs.15,00,000 and there has heen no basis to expand the proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales, on extraneous and irrelevant reasoning at para 13.5 of impugned order. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 5. The case file reveals that the appeal was filed by the assessee in 2016 and was listed for hearing for the first time on 19.12.2018. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee therefore the matter was adjourned. The case file further reveals that the appeal was fixed for hearing on various dates 05.02.2019, 23.04.2019, 27.06.2019, 21.08.2019, 31.10.2019, 07.01.2020, 17.03.2020, 18.05.2020, 25.06.2020, 25.08.2020, 21.10.2020, 24.12.2020, 09.02.2021, 14.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that CIT(A) at para 4.2 after considering the remand report, the assessee s submissions to the remand report has held that the ground taken by the assessee about the re-assessment being made without disposing of the objections raised by assessee was misplaced as the AO in assessment order has clearly mentioned that the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the case was supplied to the assessee and objections filed by it was disposed of by rejecting the same. CIT(A) vide para 5.2 has also given a finding that the information was received by AO from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee was a beneficiary of taking accommodation en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
