TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, facts, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned authorities below are not justified in determining the income at Rs. 3,36,20,420/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,26,83,229/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT (A)-III erred in upholding the order of the learned DCIT even when the order passed by the Learned DCIT is bad in law as the notice u/s 148 was issued without having any cogent evidence of escapement of Income in his possession, but merely on the suspicion. It is submitted that mere suspicion is not a ground for issue of notice under section 148. Reliance is placed on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering the depreciation on the building. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change, delete any of the grounds of appeal. 9. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeals may be allowed and justice rendered. 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the assessee is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated for the purpose of carrying business of granite extraction and export. Return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed on 28/03/2008 declaring income of Rs. 2,26,83,229/-. Against said return of income, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered the issue. I find that the AO had duly recorded reasons and these were based on information collected by him in the course of his official duties. As per this information, there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 since set off of business losses against income from capital gains for the assessment year 2007-08 had been claimed without filing returns for several previous financial years. In these circumstances, I do not find any credibility in the objections raised by the appellant. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. " The contention of the assessee-company that it had carried on business during the previous year has also been rejected by the CIT(A) vide para.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds of appeal challenging the very validity of re-assessment proceedings. The contention of the assessee-company that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated during pendency of the original proceedings cannot be accepted, as the facts emerge from the assessment order, the original return of income was filed on 28/3/2008 and therefore, notice u/s 143(2) should have been issued by 31/3/2009. Obviously, there was no notice issued u/s 143(2) against original return of income. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 21/12/2009 on which date admittedly there was no pending proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the assesseecompany that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated during the course of pendency of the original assessment is bald ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India Ltd. (supra) is misplaced. 6.2 The contention raised by the assessee-company that the assessment order passed is barred by limitation cannot be accepted as the assessee-company merely raised a bald claim without demonstrating before us as to how it is barred by limitation. Hence, this contention is also rejected. 6.3 In the result, grounds challenging re-assessment proceedings are dismissed. 7. As regards merits of the addition, the assessee-company has not brought any evidence in support of the contention that the assessee-company had undertaken any business activity during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The findings of the AO that sales tax bills or invoices and transport details plus de....