9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Garodia,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri. Vivek Mishra, CIT (DR) For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Yadav: These cross-appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting part relief to the assessee. For the sake of reference, we extract the grounds of appeal raised in the assessee s appeal as well as the Revenue s appeal as under:- GROUNDS IN I.T.A. NO.488/LKW/2005: BY THE REVENUE: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,95,662/- made by the A.O. on account of entries in the undisclosed bank account in the name of M/s Ganga Buiders Promotors, a benami concern of the assessee , without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 2(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,36,200/- out of the addition of ₹ 2,56,000/- made by the A.O. on account of rent received by the assessee on the basis of seized papers, which was not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income without appreciating the facts of the case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same, withdrawn by the assessee for his personal expense was not declared in his return. 9(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 16,12,900/- made by the A.O. on account of fresh infusion in the share capital of M/s. U.P. Lime Chemicals Ltd., without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 9(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee was the major contributing director of M/s U.P. Lime Chemical Ltd. as the seized papers showed that out of the total contribution of ₹ 4.30 crores by the directors in the said company, the Contribution of the assessee was ₹ 1.85 crores and, therefore, the A.O. was justified in inferring that the fresh infusion of capital of ₹ 16,23,400/- in the names of various parties, which did not exist, was in fact, the investment made by the assessee out of his own undisclosed sources in the names of such non-existent parties. 10(a) The Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 34,48,640/- made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,118/- made by the A.O. on the basis of seized papers on account of unexplained investment in purchase of soft drink material by the assessee, without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 13(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee has failed to explain She source of said investment, whereas all the purchase vouchers were found at the residence of the assessee. 14(a) The Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and en facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,51,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposits in Bijnore Cooperative bank by Smt Tejeshwari Singh, the wife of the assessee, without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 14(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that Smt Tejeshwari Smgh the wife of the assessee was not having any independent source of income and the assessing officer rightly added the said cash deposits as unexplained income of the assessee. 15(a) The Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Rules ,1962. 19(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to verify the amounts of ₹ 1,76,645/- on account of LIC receipts and the amount of ₹ 1,80,000/- stated to have been received from six persons and similarly amounts on account of cash deposits amounting to ₹ 6,27,312/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to explain the source of acquisition of these amounts during the assessment proceedings despite several opportunities provided by the A.O. 20(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,30,430/- made on account of unexplained cash found at the residence of the assessee at Kothi Antaghar, Bijnore, without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 20(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the source of acquisition of the cash during the assessment proceedings. 21. That the order the Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow being erroneous in law and on facts be vacated and the order of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as chosen not to divulge. 7. The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law confirming the addition of ₹ 26,100/- (wrongly stated as ₹ 28,100/-) as the undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period, as there was no material to show that the credits appearing in the bank account of Km. Shipra Singh was on account of appellant's undisclosed income. 8. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances specially keeping in view the facts that the account in which the credit was appearing was that of the appellant's daughter who used to deposit the amount out of her earning and saving out of temporary assignments done by her, the learned CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 26,100/- as the appellants undisclosed income for the block period. 9. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 24,750/- as the appellant's undisclosed income. 10. In confirming the addition of ₹ 24,750/- in the present case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant any opportunity to have its say or make compliance of the reasons relied upon by him in so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Certificate supported with affidavit from whom was also filed, as the appellant's undisclosed income for the Block Period. 18. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not at all justified in not giving any opportunity before disbelieving the certificate and affidavit and so was not at all justified in confirming the addition relating to $ 11,000/- as the appellant's undisclosed income for the Block Period. Without prejudice to all the grounds taken above. 19. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) on peculiar facts and circumstances erred on facts and in law in not quashing the Block Assessment Order passed in the present case as the Ld. A.O. never acquired a legal or a valid jurisdiction to issue notice or to pass any order in the present case, because the alleged order stated to have been passed U/S 127 of the I.T, Act, 1961 was illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and without affording any opportunity to the appellant. 20. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case as the alleged order stated to have been passed u/s 127 of the Act purportedly transferring the appellant's case from Bijnor to Luck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
