TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and the consequential reasst. order passed u/s.147 without appreciating that the reopening by the learned A.O. u/s. 148 was on the basis of reason to suspect and therefore, the entire proceedings including the order passed u/s.147 was bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that no separate order was passed by the learned A.O. in respect of the objections raised by the assessee on the reasons recorded for reopening the case and hence, the final reasst. order passed u/s.147 was not valid at all. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,87,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had received the said amount on account of transfer of tenancy ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich was served on 29.03.2014. In the reasons for re-opening the assessment a copy of which is filed in the paper book at Page Nos. 3 and 4, it is stated therein that following informations were received from Investigation Wing on the basis of TEP (Tax Evasion petition). These informations were that shop No. 30 and 31 at Saraswati Vilas, Lakshmi Road, Pune are owned by the. Trust Maharashtra Girls Education Society (MGE Society), Huzurpaga, Pune 411 030 which is a Charitable Trust carrying out the activity of running of School. These two shops were given on lease by the Trust to late Smt. Sushilabai B. Agarwal on a nominal monthly rent. It is also seen that the said tenancy rights (in respect of said shop no. 30 and 31 at Saraswati Vilas Bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al but in the entire loose paper there is no mention of payment to the said Rajkumar B. Agarwal. There is no signature also appearing in that loose paper of Rajkumar B. Agarwal. In absence of signature of the assessee acknowledgement of receipt of any amount cannot be presumed on the assessee for taxation purpose. Even, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order at Para 23 records that "further the impugned papers contain signatures of the parties to the transaction, though assessee's signatures are not there.". That irrespective of recording this finding, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as per detailed reasons appearing in his order which is on record, had upheld the addition in the hands of the assessee. 6. That before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in case of 'D Group' against the name of assessee. 6.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 wherein the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of some entries in the books of third persons. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that it is settled legal position that simply placing reliance on some loose papers the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition in absence of other corroborative evidences to that effect. 7. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordinate Authorities. 8. We have perused the case record and heard the rival contentions. We have also analyzed....