2017 (6) TMI 1036

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me at 5%, but offered an income of Rs. 60,000/- as a 'business income'. Assessee had income from other sources of very small amounts of interest and commission income. He filed return of income of Rs. 98,454/-. AO has issued a notice u/s. 148 on 04-07-2008 in order to examine the cash deposits made with Union Bank of India, Kamalapur Branch, Karimnagar Dist. On considering assessee's explanation, the said assessment was completed vide the order dt. 09-02-2009, wherein the AO accepted assessee's explanation that the deposits in the bank account were amounts realized on sales which were periodically deposited in the said savings bank account. AO completed the assessment by making a round-sum addition of Rs. 5,000/- after recording the followi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raised the following three grounds: "2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant did not provide any evidence rebutting the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that detailed written submissions were filed on 03.02.2016 before the Hon'ble CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the evidences submitted alongwith the written submissions and passed a reasoned order. 3. Initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 by the Assessing Officer are not valid and the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment is bad in law. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that the bank account with Union Bank of India is shown in the statement of affairs of the appellant a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record and the assessment record furnished by the DR. As far as the issue of 147 is concerned, there may be merit in assessee's contentions that the provisions are not attracted as the notice was issued after four years and there is no failure on the part of assessee to disclose the information. But, the ground cannot be considered as the same was not agitated before the AO or before the CIT(A). Even in this appeal, assessee has not raised the ground on reopening as an additional ground but mentioned as Ground No. 3 in the regular grounds raised. When pointed out, Ld. Counsel fairly admitted that they have not agitated the issue before the Revenue authorities but raised the groun....