2020 (7) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(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 the 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, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO are bad in the eyes of law, as the reasons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the assessee that AO has no jurisdiction to re-open the case of the assessee since the belief has already been formed in the case of M/s Satyam Builders." 3. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring income of Rs. 7,66,780/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act vide notice dated 31.03.2015. The assessee filed return of income on 21.09.2015 of Rs. 2197077/-. 4. The reasons for reopening were that Investigation Wing received a tax evasion petitions stating that the assessee being a proprietor of M/s. Satyam Builders has undisclosed income on account of booking of bogus expenses by the bogus bills for Assessment Year 2008-09. The investigatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red appeal before the ld CIT(A). He upholds the validity of the reopening proceedings. He also confirmed the addition 10% of the receipt, however he held that the same receipts have been taxed twice once in the hands of the assessee as proprietor of Satyam Builders and second in the partnership firm M/s. Satyam Builders. Therefore, he directed to ld AO to examine the same and give relief accordingly. With respect to the addition of cash withdrawal and unexplained bank deposit of Rs. 1260648/- and Rs. 410000/- respectively, he deleted the addition. Therefore, aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld AR did not press any other issue in the appeal but only requested for addressing the estimation....