9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t referring to any material which could justify his conclusion that the income of the assessee escaped assessment, instantiated the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the action was not justified because the action appears to be on suspicion and for making roving enquiries. The basis of the reasons recorded by the AO is that the assessee along with her husband Shri Chunni Lal Prajapati was making huge investment in construction of property - the reopening was not justified because the action was on suspicion and for making roving enquiries - When the investment in house property alleged by the Department is in the joint name of the assessee and her husband, it was held by the Tribunal that the reopening is not valid because the same is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order and that too on Protective Basis. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in arbitrarily upholding the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was based on the information received from the Addl. Director (Inv.) and there is no application of mind of the Ld. A.O. as apparent from the assessment order. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that there existed relevant material which could lead to formation of requisite reason to believe and the Assessing Officer committed no error as such in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and failing as such to fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been fixed at ₹ 32,86,500/- as against ₹ 26,40,000/- shown by the assessee. The investment declared by the assessee and estimated by the D.V F.Y. O. (Departmental Valuation Officer) is as under-Declared cost in Construction/investment(Rs) F.Y. wise estimated cost of Difference Construction /investment (Rs.) (Rs.) 2000-01 1,70,000.00 2,30.712.00 60,712.00 2001-02 9,57,500.00 12,51,828.00 2,94,328.00 2002-03 4,67,500.00 5,89,269.00 1,21,769.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be on suspicion and for making roving enquiries. In that view of the matter, assessments framed on the basis of notices dated 22.3.2006 issued u/s. 148 of the Act are set aside considering the same as illegal and bad in law, hence vitiated. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee, therefore, no finding has been given on the other grounds contested by the assessee on merits. 8. As the facts and circumstances for reopening are the same, we respectfully follow the decision of coordinate Bench and hold that the reopening for the assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are bad in law. 6. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment in both the years in the case of the present assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al income as ₹ 1,50,000/- which is not acceptable and is to be assessed in her hand as income for undisclosed sources. I have therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment owing to failure on the part of the assesses to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Issue notice u/s 148. Sd/. (Sanjeev Kumar Saxena) Income Tax Officer-I, Faizabad The assessee, an individual, is stated to be deriving income from sewing, stitching, embroidery work, besides having agricultural income for the asstt. vear 2005-06, return showing an income of ₹ 95,000/- from business and ₹ 1,50,000/- as agricultural income was filed on 06.09.2005. Except a paper cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,80,000/- and ₹ 2,75,000/- respectively has not accepted due to various reasons elaborately discussed in the assessment order for relevant year and these gifts were treated as income of her husband from undisclosed sources liable to he charged to tax in his case substantively and on protective basis in case of the assessee to safeguard the interest of revenue. Position in this year is same as in earlier years. I have therefore, reason to believe that income of ₹ 1,50,000/- +Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 6,50,000/- chargeable to lax has escaped the assessment owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Issue notice u/s 148. Sd/. (Sanjeev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
