9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. So far as arguments on merits are concerned, we have make it clear apart from the bald assertion raised in the grounds of appeal, there is no material available on record that the findings of the CIT(A) on merits suffer from any misreading of documents on record. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) under challenge. - I.T.A. Nos.2293, 2298 & 2294, 2295 & 2299, 2296 & 2300 and 2297 & 2301/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2013 - Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Shri S.S. Godara, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT ORDER PER S.S. Godara, Judicial Member This batch of nine appeals [except I.T.A. No. 2297/Mds/2012] pertaining to same assessee, is directed against different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II, Chennai, all dated 29.10.2012 in ITA No. 207/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2002-03; ITA No. 159/10- 11/A.II ITA No.171/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2003-04; ITA No. 160/10-11/A.II ITA No. 172/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2004-05; ITA No. 161/10-11/A.II ITA No. 108/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated penalty proceedings. 7. After finalization of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice dated 26.03.2008 to the assessee on the ground that in the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, he had made cash deposit of ₹ 11.00 lakhs in the Indian Overseas Bank, Santhome Branch. Per Assessing Officer, though the assessee had stated to have received the amount from the entity namely S S Foundations (P) Ltd. (supra), the cash book of the said entity did not show any such payment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment. In proceedings consequence thereto, the assessee is stated to have given a written submission admitting the amount aforesaid ₹ 11.00 lakhs as unexplained income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer finalized reassessment vide order dated 24.12.2008 and made addition of ₹ 11.00 lakhs. He also issued another penalty notice. 8. In penalty proceedings qua scrutiny assessment (supra), assessee s only submission qua unexplained investment was that since he cooperated in the assessment proceedings and paid tax, the penalty notice was liable to be dropped. Regarding agricultural income, his subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained cash deposits of ₹ 2.5 lakhs and ₹ 11.00 lakhs respectively. It also transpires that they pertain to amount deposited in assessee s bank account in Indian Overseas Bank, Santhome Branch, Chennai. At the first instance, the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act vide assessment order dated 31.12.2007. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed reassessment order (supra) dated 24.12.2008. It is evident that in assessments as well as in penalty proceedings, there is no explanation tendered by the assessee as his submissions on both occasions are that since he had cooperated in the assessments, the penalty notices are liable to be dropped. In our view and more so, in view of the latest decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 415/2012 dated 21.01.2013 titled as CIT v. Mak Data Ltd., holding as under: .. The absence of any explanation is statutorily considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no tangible/fresh materials justifying the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and hence ought to have appreciated that the re-assessment framed in consequence thereto was bad in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 6 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the decisions cited in the said para 6 of the impugned order were not applicable to the facts of the case and quoted out of context. 7. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 16,58,549/- representing the net cash deficit while overlooking the revised cash flow statement in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not analyzed/considered the revised cash flow statement, the sustenance of the said addition without reason in para 7 of the impugned order was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
