9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 5947/Del/2013 (AY 2004-05). 2. The grounds raised in 5747/Del/2013 (AY 2004-05) read as under:- "1. That the impugned assessment order dated 12/12/2011 as passed u/s 144/147 read with section 143(3) of I.T. Act is arbitrary and illegal on various factual and legal grounds. The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action taken by the AO u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. The impugned assessment order deserves to be cancelled/annulled. 2. That the action of the Id. CIT(A) in relying upon the documents collected from Standard Chartered Bank as made by her part of the appellate order as Annexure A (running in 28 pages) without confronting them to the Appellant in the course of appellate proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order deserves to be cancelled/annulled. 2. That the action of the Id. CIT(A) in relying upon the documents collected from Standard Chartered Bank as made by her part of the appellate order as Annexure A (running in 28 pages) without confronting them to the Appellant in the course of appellate proceedings vitiated the impugned appellate order and consequently, the same deserves to be cancelled/annulled. 3. That without prejudice to the above grounds, the addition of Rs. 12,57,931/- on account of the alleged deposit in Standard Chartered Bank GK Branch, New Delhi as enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 13,43,542/- is arbitrary and wholly illegal particularly when the appellant had denied to have any account with Standard Chartered Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice to the above grounds, the addition of Rs. 5,67,419/- on account of the alleged deposit in Standard Chartered Bank GK Branch, New Delhi as enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 6,61,706/- is arbitrary and wholly illegal particularly when the appellant had denied to have any account with Standard Chartered Bank. Various observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders are either incorrect or are untenable. 4. 'That without prejudice to above grounds, the addition if at all could be of peak credit only, which will be far less than the addition made by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. That the total income assessed by giving effect to CIT(A) order and the income tax demand created thereon are arbitrary, unjust and at any rate w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07. He requested that issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and also assured the Bench that assessee will cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings before him and will not take any unnecessary adjournment in the case. 7. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and strongly opposed the request of the assessee's counsel for remitting back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and the contention raised by the assessee's counsel, as aforesaid. We find considerable cogency in assessee's counsel contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
