9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing o this appeal. 3. The issues raised in the Assessee s appeal read as under:- 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in not holding that, initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act had been made without satisfying preconditions in the Act and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law and, deserved to be quashed as such. 2) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in making an addition of ₹ 10,54,214/- representing the alleged unexplained deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 2.1) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while making the aforesaid addition, has failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case of the appellant, documentary evidence on record and, statutory provisions of law and hence, addition made is altogether misconceived, misplaced and wholly unsustainable. 2.2) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings, the appellant refrained from coming clean even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of unreported transactions reflected in the bank account and consequential undisclosed income. The said finding too, is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and hence, not tenable. 2.7) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that evidence filed to support cash purchase made by the appellant from Thanchingi Sons, Aizawal, Mizoram is not tenable on merits has given no basis in support of the above conclusion and has mechanically arrived at such a conclusion to support his preconceived and premeditated opinion and thus, the same is not warranted. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in holding that opening balance of ₹ 1,77,717/- from where undisclosed income begins is assessable in assessment year 2000-01 and further erred in directing the learned Officer to take appropriate action. The said finding is too wholly unsustainable and not in accordance with statutory provisions of law and hence, deserve to be quashed. 4) That the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank account 1,77,717 Cash in hand 3,47,609 Sundry debtors 14,58,293 19,83,620 19,83,620 Balance sheet of Alok Mangal as on 31.3.2001 Liabilities Assets Alok Mangal Capital account 20,85,259 Bank account 1,59,160 Cash in hand 47,349 Sundry debtors 10,50,000 20,85,259 20,85,259 4.1 Assessing Officer further found that assessee had shown purchase of goods of ₹ 705260/- which was sold to the above party on which profit of ₹ 115270/- was earned. In this regard, assessee was required to submit the documentary evidence in support of purchase cost and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50000.00 28/9/2000 0000 200000.00 6/10/2000 00011111 15000.00 9/10/2000 0000 20000.00 24/11/2000 0000 25000.00 24/11/2000 0000 49850.00 24/11/2000 0000 99700.00 22/12/2000 0000 84745.00 23/12/2000 0000 71749.00 29/12/2000 00011111 15000.00 13/1/2001 0000 15000.00 13/1/2001 00577766 350000.00 15/1/2001 00011111 13 Jan 15000.00 7/2/2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
