9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceedings, the ld. AO had given ample opportunity to the assessee but the assessee in his reply stated that now about 8 years have lapsed and he was not in touch with the beneficiaries, therefore, he could not provide the exact address of the parties. All the facts narrated above and the ld. CIT(A) categorically stated while passing his order by which he confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO. He after considering the facts of the case in our hand, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) need not required to be interfered any more by this Tribunal and accordingly, we affirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and set aside the grounds taken by the assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1716/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2023 - Dr. Manish Borad , Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma , Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sunil Surana , FCA For the Revenue : Smt. Ranu Biswas , Addl. CIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma , JM : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ld. CIT(A) dated 11.11.2016 for A.Y. 2007- 08. The assessee has taken the following g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed whereas there was merely a small typographical error occurred due to haste in which the appellant was put into by the Ld. Assessing Officer. x. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in this case information was received from the office of the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata that the present assessee had done a high volume of cash transactions during the financial year 2006-07. The ld. AO immediately verified the data of the assessee and came to know that the assessee has not filed any return for the assessment year in question. The ld. AO on the basis of information received from the competent authority initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stating the reasons that the assessee made certain transactions which were the part of his undisclosed income which had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice, assessee filed a written submission and a copy of return filed by him disclosing a total amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before the bench that the order passed by the ld. AO is bad in law as the assessment proceeding was initiated by the ld. AO on borrowed satisfaction besides that re-assessment proceedings initiated upon the assessee without proper sanction of law and while doing so, ld. AO did not even provide the copy of the reason to believe to the assessee before issuing of such notice u/s 148 of the Act. The ld. AR further contended that the ld. CIT(A) by confirming the action taken by the ld. AO is totally alien information received from DDIT(Inv.) without going through the statement of appellant recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata and taken the entire deposit as unexplained cash credit in the hands of assessee. On such issues, the ld. DR vehemently opposed the submission made by the AR of the assessee and he supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and material available on record. The alleged issue challenged by the assessee has been dealt by the ld. CIT(A) in his order at page no. 14 stating that the ld. AO has followed the procedure laid down in the Act and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son so alleged. The ld. CIT(A) also stated in his order that the appellant stated before the ld. AO that he had received 1% commission on the aforesaid transaction and he was merely signatory to the account of M/s. Shakti Agency which was opened on the instruction of Mr. Arun Agarwal and the cash deposit was made in account of assessee but he failed to produce Mr. Aurn Agarwal and provide his correct address and the details of the beneficiary who had been given accommodation entry. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the ld. AO in respect of impugned addition of Rs. 17,16,91,313/- and ground was rejected. 7. We after hearing the rival submission and perused the records. We note that the ld. AO in his recorded reasons as clearly stated that the appellant had filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year which itself was sufficient for framing the reasons to believe that the assessee has escaped from assessment and the ld. AO on the specific information received from the Investigation Wings of the Department and information was not vague but was a specific information pertaining to the transaction made by the appellant by stating details of accommoda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
