AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see thereby confirming the order of AO of Rs. 6,61,000/- as undisclosed income. The AO failed to substantiate the addition as the addition has not been made either of Ss. 69, 69A, 69B of the Act which assumes importance when assessee has not maintained books of account. In view of this addition is not sustainable. It be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the reopening of the assessment S. 147 is bad in law and without jurisdiction. The AO failed to pass 'speaking order dealing with each and every objection on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate this legal position as mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The assessment being illegal and without jurisdiction as it was passed without following the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conduct deep verification of opening and closing balances which needs deep verification. This is contrary to verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter. The assessment being illegal and without jurisdiction be quashed." 3. Apropos Ground No.1, the assessee has drawn our attention to Para 19 of the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer had recorded that during the course of assessment, the assessee has failed to provide any evidence and source of investment in the property purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions given by the assessee has accepted the saving available with the assessee for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. However, he had held that the remaining amount of Rs. 6, 61,000/- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coaching classes and was also giving home tuitions and on account of this he had saved Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further, he had also saved Rs. 3,00,000/- from agricultural income received from agricultural activities of his family. However, to support the above said savings by tuitions and agricultural income no evidence was given by the assessee. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of the lower Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Despite the opportunities given by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee and also before us, the assessee failed to bring any evidence showing the sources of investment made by the assessee in purchasing properties.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion before the issue of notice u/s.148. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has recorded on page 8 of the impugned order that notice u/s.148 was issued on 15-03-2016 which is within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and further no scrutiny assessment was done earlier. He further observed that the requirement of approval is only when there is previous scrutiny assessment and the period of more than four years from the relevant assessment year has elapsed. The ld. AR could not point out any infirmity in the raison d'etre given by the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, refuse to interfere in the impugned order to this extent. 12. Another legal ground raised by the assessee is against not passing a separate order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d submitted that both the Authorities below have confirmed the addition on estimate basis by restricting disallowance to 15% and the same are reproduced to the following effect: "6. In ground No.3, the appellant is aggrieved against addition of Rs. 92,482/- being 15% of various expenses as the assessee failed to produce the supporting details like bills, vouchers etc. In the grounds, it has been submitted that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance as no books were maintained. 6.1 I do not find any merit in the argument taken particularly when the appellant himself is admitting that no details or books were maintained. I accordingly confirmed the AO's action in disallowing 15% of the expenses at Rs. 92,482/-" ....