9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the addition of Rs. 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 and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 2(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in holding that the said property was a joint family property without appreciating that no such evidence could be furnished by the assessee before the A.O. despite specific quarry and assessee failed to establish that a part of rent as shown in the seized paper was in respect of the share of other relatives of the assessee. 3(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,40,210/-made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash and drafts on the basis of seized papers, without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 3(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the said addition was made on the basis of the details contained at page 27 of the Annexure-A .seized from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndisclosed 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 Rs. 34,48,640/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment in the share capital of M/s. Bheem Cement Ltd, without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 10(b) In doing so the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that as per the list of shareholders, the investment of the assessee in of the above company was shown at Rs. 9.00,000/- whereas the total contribution of the assessee was actually 44.25% of the total paid up capital of the company i.e Rs. 35,38,640/- and the assessing officer lightly added the difference of Rs. 34,48,640/-i Rs. 35,38,640/- minus Rs. 90,000/-) as unexplained investment in the share capital of M/s Bheem Cement Ltd. 11(a) The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,87,790/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment in the share capital of M/s. U.P. Organics Ltd. without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh deposits as unexplained income of the assessee. 15(a) The Ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,54,250/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposits in the cash book found at 6-B Park Road Lucknow , without appreciating the facts of the case and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 15(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 could not explain the source of such deposits made by the assessee in the said cash book and the assessing officer rightly added the said cash deposits as unexplained income of the assessee. 16. The Ld. CIT(A)- III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Ps.50,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposits in the cash hook of Mansarovar Sahkan Avas Samiti Ltd on 23.07.1998 without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not explain the source of such deposits and the assessing officer rightly added the said cash deposits as unexplained income of the assessee. 17(a) The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-III, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroneous in law and on facts be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. GROUNDS IN I.T.A. NO.530/LKW/2005: BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. The learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -III, Lucknow (here in after referred to as the learned CIT (A)'S) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,800/- as the appellant's undisclosed income by holding "However, the facts remains that Dr. Neeraj has admitted to paying rent of Rs. 1,200/-" to Shri Piyush kumar in view of the assessee. In such circumstances I accept the rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month, which is similar to other shops in the same complex, half of the said amount is taken to be per month income of the assessee from 1st February, 1999. 2. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the learned CIT (A) was not at all justified in confirming Rs. 19,800/-as the appellant's undisclosed income for the Block period. 3. In confirming the addition of Rs. 19,800/- the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no material seized in the course of search on the basis of which any part of alleged amount could at all be considered as the appellant's undisclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition. 11. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not at all justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,750/- by drawing a reconciliation of figures relating to M/s Durga Shakti Enterprises separately assessed to tax, as the undisclosed income of the appellant in the present case. 12. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,87,500/- as the appellant's undisclosed income of the appellant for the Block Period. 13. On the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case specially keeping in view the facts that affidavits were filed by the appellant of the individuals who had advanced the respective sums aggregating Rs. 2,87,500/- the copy of which were forwarded to the A.O. on remand and no other material was brought on record to show that the deposits were the appellant's undisclosed income, the Ld. C1T ( Appeals) was not at all justified in confirming the said addition in the present case. 14. The Ld. CIT ( Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,77,500/- as the appellant's undisclosed income by allegedly holding that no explanation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and void ab initio and so the Ld. A.O at Lucknow did not acquire any legal or valid jurisdiction to assess the appellant in the present case, hence the Block Assessment order passed in the present case being without jurisdiction ought to have been quashed. 21. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the legal issue regarding jurisdiction arising out of alleged order passed u/s 127 of the Act cannot be looked into by the CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not properly disposing of the said ground and thus was not at all justified in rejecting the appellant's contention. 2. During the course of hearing, our attention was invited that these appeals were filed in 2005. Thereafter numerous notices of hearing were issued to the assessee and sometime assessee's representative appeared and sought adjournment. It has been brought to the notice of the Bench by Shri. B.P. Yadav, Advocate, who appeared before the ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee that he made his all efforts to contact the assessee on the last known address, but he was not able to trace out the whereabouts of the assessee. 3. The ld. D.R. has also submitted that the assessee is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
