2008 (11) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e his cash books for verification of the same. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 10,815 made by the AO on account of S.T. penalty/composite fee paid by the assessee, even when the assessee failed to get verified the same from his books of account. 3. Deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,912 made by the AO on account of bogus purchases being not reflected in closing stock/trading account maintained by the assessee even when the assessee could not comply with the requirements enumerated under s. 139(9)(1) of the IT Act, 1961, 4. Directing the AO to allow 20 per cent deduction for the difference in the BSR rates of CPWD and local PWD and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 6,23,721 made by the AO under s. 69C of the IT Act, on account of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Briefly the facts are that an action under s. 148 of the Act was taken in this case. The assessee however, did not challenge the proceedings taken under s. 147/148 before the learned CIT(A). He has raised grounds 1 to 3 in cross-objection as aforesaid for the first time before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing the parties and having considered the facts, circumstances and the law available on the subject we are satisfied that the ground sought to be raised as additional ground in this appeal raises a pure question of law in which the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under s. 147/148 of the Act is being challenged. If the notice issued by the AO is held invalid for want of jurisdiction, the entire proceeding taken by him would be....