TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order are bad both on facts and In law and liable to be quashed as the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been complied with. 3. (i)On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned A.O. are bad in the eye of law as the reasons recorded for the issue of notice under Section 148 are bad in the eye of law and are contrary to the facts. (ii)On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred both on facts & in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that purchases were made in regular course of the business and material so purchased was sold in the regular course of business. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law In rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition so made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee is bad in law & liable to be deleted. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the learned AO is untenable in the eye of law having been made without providing oppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,48,298/-. The AO also added Rs. 1,59,929/- which was appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee as unsecured loan by observing that the assessee could not produce any document to prove the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,59,929/-. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the books of account by observing that in the absence of any quantitative analysis, it was not possible to assess the inflation in price and quantity in respect of purchase shown from M/s Bankey Bihari Trading Co. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had shown gross profit of 11.87% as compared to 14.9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is crystal clear that the reopening u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act was done only on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing and the AO did not apply his independent mind to come to the conclusion that the income of the assessee escaped assessment. 10. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs G & G Pharma Ltd. 384 ITR 147 (supra) held as under: "The basic requirement of law for reopening an assessment is application of mind by the Assessing Officer, to the materials produced prior to reopening the assessment, to conclude that he has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Unless that basic jurisdictional requirement is s....