9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and due opportunity of hearing rendering the appellate order opposed to norms of natural justice; (ii) deciding the appeal without considering the records which were available for adjudication (iii) Directing the Assessing Officer to verify the loss of Rs. 3,39, 373.75/- during the assessment year 2011-12. (iv) Ld. CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,82,385/- fowards cash deposits in bank account which is properly explained by the assessee. All the above actions being erroneous, unlawful and untenable must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief." 2. Subsequently, the assessee also filed following revised grounds of appeal: "1. The proceedings initiated by the AO were b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 10,51,885/- in his savings bank account and had entered into share transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,28,01,92,568/- during F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The AO issued statutory notices in response whereof the assessee filed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 5,82,385/- u/s 68 of the Act, thus assessed at an income of Rs. 5,86,360/-. The Assessing Officer qua transactions in shares adopted net profit @ 8% on presumptive basis, which he computed at Rs. 1,59,127/-.Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. vs The Assistant Commission of Income Tax in W.P. No. 25229 of 2019 dated 19.07.2022 by Madras High Court Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in WP No. 804 of 2022 of dated 27.04.2022 by High Court of Judicature at Bombay Jurisdiction:- The ward no.27(3) has originally issued a notice u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 12.07.2012 & 12.06.2013 therefore the present ward no. 61(1) has no jurisdiction to neither issue a notice nor pass any order. The ward no. 61(1) is belonged and dealt to the professions only. Therefore, the ward no 61(1) has passed the assessment order without having jurisdiction. Change of opinion:- The ward no. 27(3) has issued two notices on 12.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction and received the gift from the family member. However, after knowing the all facts of the case, AO has passed the assessment order which is based on the fiction and imagination of the AO. Objection on the reopening the Assessment The AO has no valid ground for reopening the assessment. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that no objection were filed by the assesse however the assesse has raised oral objection which were not recorded by the AO that why the AO has tiying to cover up the question law which are against the AO. It is evident that the both the issues were in favour of the assesse i.e. objection on the reopening the assessment, jurisdiction etc. Assessment order is based on imagination and fallacious ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the available records The AO has issued a notice u/s 133(6) to file the ITR however assesse was unable to compliance due to technical reason but the assesse has reiterated his statement that he has no taxable income in the AY 2011-12 and the assesse got the loss in the commodity transactions. Furthermore, the broker has been declared defaulter by the SEBI therefore assesse was unable to provide the P&L statement, therefore as per the direction of the AO therefore assesse has filed the ITR of profit of Rs.4,000/- of that duration however the AO has accepted the loss of Rs.3,39,000/- after examining the transactions statement. But, the AO has warned the assesse that I he will file a loss ITR then he will refuse the ITR and ask the P&L st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is further contended that reopening of assessment is without authority of law as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material information. The assessment is barred by time and the lower authorities failed to consider facts and material on record. It is further contended that authorities below failed to provide adequate opportunity. On merit it is stated that cash deposits of Rs. 10,51,885/- was made out of cash withdrawals. The authorities below failed to give set off of such withdrawals. Considering the fact that there was cash withdrawals during the year under consideration, the addition is restricted to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, as the probability of utilization of withdrawals cannot be ruled out.The grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
