TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded for the reopening of the case. (c) Not serving the notice on the Assessee at the address intimated to the ITO. (d) That the addition is against the principle of natural justice and needs to be quashed because the Assessee has not been allowed the opportunity to see the material evidence against him and has not got the opportunity to contest the same or cross examine the person if any who gave information. This request was made to CIT(A) also that since he has the powers which are coterminous with that of Income Tax Officer however no action has been taken by the CIT(A) also. (e) not exercising his powers u/s 133(6) to get confirmation from M/s Karishma Diamond P. Ltd. which is a Private Limited Company. Mere suspicion cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation mentioned in the re-opening. The Ld. AR further submitted that layering of the funds discussed by the Assessing Officer is totally contradictory to the documents/audited accounts produced before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR pointed out from the paper book that the reasons and re-opening is on totally different footings. There was no detail of information given by the Assessing Officer and there is no application of mind on part of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no allegation in reasons recorded that there was failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that this present Assessment Year is the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. In the circumstances, there is a mismatch in opening stock to this extent. Therefore, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the extent of Rs. 4,20,34,563/- for the assessment year 2011-12 within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Sd/- (PRAVEEN K. SHARMA) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon." Thus, in the above mentioned reasons it was clearly mentioned that the assessee was in employment in earlier Assessment Year and drawing salary. Therefore, the fact that the assessee started business in this year only is reiterated. From the perusal of the balance sheet, it can be seen that the figure of Rs. 4,14,86,563/- is a amount for purchases which was not corre....