2019 (10) TMI 770

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct'). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the re-opening proceedings initiated by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Actis invalid and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the A.O. in making an addition of on money investment Rs. 23,50,000/- and that too without assign....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idence, without proper corroboration from some other source for reopening the case is not correct. Suspicion howsoever strong should not be the basis for reopening of the case". Stating thus, the assessee submitted before the AO that the reopening of assessment is not justified. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanation of the assessee for the reason that during the search in the case of the Hiranandani Group, the final statement of the Director (Shri Niranjan Hiranandani) has been recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, wherein he has admitted of receiving the "on-money". The AO has extracted the relevant portion of the statement dated 14.03.2014 which is produced below: "Q.10. From the running statement of cash tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....details of the non-attendance by the assessee as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under: S. No. Date of issue of notice/letter Date on which hearing fixed Remarks 1. 02.05.2016 02.06.2016 Vide letter dated 02.06.2016, the appellant sought adjournment and adjourned to 28.06.2016 2.   28.06.2016 Nobody attended, nor was any adjournment sought. 3. 19.09.2016 18.10.2016 Nobody attended, nor was any adjournment sought. 4. 18.10.2016 21.11.2016 Acknowledgment of service of notice is placed on record with signature of the receiver. However, nobody attended, nor any adjournment was sought. As neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared during the course of app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion in PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017-TIOL-253-SCIT), PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Indu Lata Rangwala v. DCIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 102 (Delhi)/[2016] 384 ITR 337 (Delhi)/[2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi), Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO [2017] 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 333 (SC), Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel v. ITO [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT (2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT), Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR 456 (Delhi), Yogendrakumar Gupta v. ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/[2014] 227 Taxman 374 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Ot....