9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal sustaining the part of ₹ 6,76,441/- does not suffer from any infirmity. The question is answered accordingly. Addition in part claimed as deduction made by the wife of assessee - Held that:- Tribunal has recorded its finding upholding disallowance of certain cash credit entries in the books of account of the assessee, the Tribunal has considered the material and evidence at length and has thereafter sustained part disallowance. While the identity of the creditors may have been established by the assessee, the other essential ingredients of their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction were not found established by the Tribunal. These findings of fact are again based on appraisal of evidence. Again, we do not find any infirmity in these finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Question no. 'D' is also answered accordingly. - Income Tax Appeal No. 381 of 2008, Income Tax Appeal No. 513, 477, 516 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2017 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar,Piyush Agrawal ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of the assessee fails. Before the Tribunal, the department challenged the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the reassessment proceedings had been validly initiated. On the other hand the assessee raised the following three grounds in his Cross Objections. 1. Because the notice u/s 148 dated 15.2.2001 for A.Y. 1992-93 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Mau, is bad in law as he was not a competent authority to issue such notice after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of section 151 and therefore the entire proceedings initiated through notice dated 15.2.2001 is void, ab initio and consequently the entire assessment deserves to be quashed. 2. Because in any case at the time of issuance of notice under Section 148, the Income Tax Officer, Mau, did not have jurisdiction in the case of the assessee, as no such order conferring jurisdiction on him in the case of the assessee and/or the area in which the appellant has been residing had been issued. 3. Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that such an issue of jurisdiction should have been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first two questions raised in this appeal), Sri Shakeel Ahmad has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. reported in (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) wherein it has been held as below:- Having examined the record, we find that in this case, the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the civil appeal. The Department was not entitled to reopen the assessment. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law relied by learned counsel. However, each case turns on its own facts. It is not disputed that the construction of another residential house and Nursing Home had been made by the assessee but the same had not been disclosed by the assessee as he had not filed his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cross-objection is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has taken us through the cross objection filed by the assessee before the Tribunal raising three grounds. While the Tribunal in its order in paragraphs 8 and 9 (as quoted above) as dealt with ground no.1 raised in the cross-objection. There is no discussion to the other two grounds. Clearly the assessee appears to have either given up or not pressed ground nos. 2.1 and 2.2 raised in his cross-objection. We also find that neither assessee filed any rectification application before the Tribunal nor any pleadings nor any question has been raised in the instant appeal on the issue of non consideration of those grounds. In view of the above, the issue of considering grounds no. 2.1 and 2.2 does not arise in the instant appeal. So far as the Tribunal has rejected the ground no. 2 raised in the cross-objection, there is no objection raised by the assessee in the present appeal. So far as the question no. 'C' by the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with the same and recorded its finding in para 16 wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- 16. Opening capital is a concept which the assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
