TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The order of re-assessment is bad in law and void-ab-initio for want of requisite jurisdiction especially, the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act did not exist and have not been complied with and consequently, the re-assessment requires to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,12,000/- as the alleged excess stock discovered during the course of Survey under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the appellant has clearly shown the closing stock correctly in the Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet filed along with the return of income and therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn for AY 2001-02 was filed on 31.10.2001 declaring income of Rs. 79,090 and assessment was completed on 1.3.2004 at Rs. 89,090 against the returned income of Rs. 79,090, against which an appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) and thereafter no further appeal was filed. 4. On 16.2.2006, the AO formed a view to reopen the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act and accordingly reasons were recorded and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 17.2.2006 to which the assessee has filed objections to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 13.7.2006 and in response thereto, the assessee sought a copy of the reasons recorded vide letter dated 31.7.2006. Through this letter, it was also stated that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. This order of the AO was challenged before the CIT(Appeals) on the legal ground, but no explanation was furnished with regard to source of investment in excess stock. The CIT(Appeals) has dealt with this issue in detail in his order in the light of the aforesaid facts and was of the view that since assessee has not offered the agreed undisclosed investment towards the excess tock in the return of income filed on 31.10.2001, the AO has rightly made the addition. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals). 6. Now the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated its contentions. The ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that since all information was available before the AO, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on a particular issue, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the reopening is bad in law and assessment framed consequent thereto deserves to be quashed. 8. The ld. DR, besides placing reliance upon the order of CIT(Appeals) has emphatically argued that during the course of survey, the assessee has admitted the unexplained investment in excess stock, but while filing the return of income, he did not include the investment in excess stock. Therefore, the AO has rightly reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, having recorded the reasons for doing so. 9. Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, I find that undisputedly a survey was conducted in the business premises of the asses....