9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. ii) The Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment. iii) The reopening of assessment is bad and illegal as the reasons does not reflect that the income having escaped assessment is more than rupees one lakh or likely to be more than rupees one lakh as laid down under the provisions of s. 149(1)(b) of Act as reopening is made beyond four years. iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 10,00,000/~ The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. Ground Nos.2 & 3 are legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging validity of the assessment f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IC premium amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs which was far in excess of the income returned during the year by the assessee amounting to Rs.3,20,365/-. Since this amount invested was not commensurate with the income returned by the assessee, the AO was of the belief that investment was from undisclosed sources, tantamounting to income to the said extent escaping assessment. 6. We are in agreement with the ld.counsel for the assessee that the information with the AO was insufficient for forming a belief of escapement of income. In other words on the basis of information in the possession of the AO , there possibly could not have been formed any belief of income escaping assessment. 7. The income of the assessee during the year alone is not suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assume valid jurisdiction to reopening the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act. 8. The ld.CIT(A), I have noted, has not dealt with this contention of the assessee in the right perspective. His finding at para 6.2 of his order is as under: "6.2 The appellant has also objected reassessment notice and reasons recorded by AO on the ground that such reasons are very vague. It was stated by appellant that AO has issued such notice only for investment made by him and not for income. The Appellant stated that AO is duty bound to disclose income element out of such payment. This contention of appellant is not acceptable for the reasons that AO has verified returned income and amount of investment and came to conclusion thatappellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
