2022 (8) TMI 730

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 Act when the original assessment order passed by the A. 0. cannot be branded as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue since the perusal of the said assessment reveals that the full investigation was made calling for the entire information needed for framing the assessment. The Revisionary order is not sustainable in law. It be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the A. 0. made the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dt. 09-09- 2011 after full application of mind the way the I. T. Act, 1961 requires. The A. O. had considered the entire information submitted by the assessee as mentioned in the assessment order that "in the course of assessment proceedings various details were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeared on behalf of assessee 06/07/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 18/08/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 05/10/21 M.K.Kulkarni appeared but case adjourned 23/12/21 None appeared on behalf of assessee 11/03/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 12/04/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 04/05/22 None appeared on behalf of assessee 2.2 Therefore, we left with no option except to decide the case after hearing the submissions of learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in Anusaya Construction deriving income from Interest and share of profit. For the A.Y. 2009-10, assessee filed return....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has introduced cash of Rs.7,00,000/- as capital in the firm. Prima facie, enough cash was not available with the assessee to introduce as capital. The Assessing Officer had not verified it. During the hearing before the ld.CIT, the assessee submitted that he had taken Loan of Rs.20,61,250/- from Life Insurance Corporation of India. However, the ld.CIT observed that the explanation submitted by the assessee was not acceptable. 3.2 We agree with the ld.CIT, that the explanation of the assessee that he had obtained Loan from LIC and then Rs.7,00,000/- had been introduced in cash as Capital in the firm, is not acceptable. Beca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee to file requisite details. At that stage, the assessee resisted furnishing details by submitting that such details related to his security and any disclosure might be detrimental to his security. Then, by letter dated 13-3-2004, the assessee, asserted that his claim was allowable but since it will not be feasible to substantiate the same, such claim may be treated as withdrawn. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee under section 69C of the said Act as to why these additional expenses claimed not to be treated as an unexplained expenditure. Such withdrawal was accepted by the AO and the proceedings under section 69C were ordered to be closed. The CIT, in such circumstances, exercised revisional jurisdiction....