9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. 2. That the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10 are liable to be quashed because the ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 23.03.2016 n the basis of the state information, for which the notice had been issued and reply had been received by the ld AO long ago. 3. That the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10 are liable to be quashed because the ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without applying his own mind. 4. That the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for AY 2009-10 are liable to be quashed because the ld. AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 under the wrong impression tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the law, the addition of Rs. 12,85,833/- made by the ld AO u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which had been confirmed by the ld CIT(A), deserves to be deleted because the provisions of section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 are not at all applicable, particularly when it is not the case of the ld AO that the appellant was found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. 10. That on the facts of the case under the law, the addition of Rs. 12,85,833/- made by the ld AO in the hands of the appellant having no income other than agricultural income, which had been confirmed by the ld CIT(A), deserves to be deleted because the ld AO had adopted a casual approach during the remand proceedings and chosen not to examine S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and perused the material available on record. Ground nos. 1 to 8 are against initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 5.1. The assessee has made multi-fold contentions regarding initiation of proceedings being bad in law. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the notice u/s 148 was issued at a wrong address. Further, there was no application of mind by the assessing authority, as the reason for reopening of the assessment as per the AO was that the assessee had purchased vide sale-deed dated 28.08.2008 an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-. In fact this property was jointly purchased. This fact was duly stated in reply filed by the assessee. 5.2. So far question of validity of initiation of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
