TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) deciding the appeal without providing reasonable proper and due opportunity of hearing rendering the appellate order opposed to norms of natural justice; (ii) deciding the appeal without considering the records which were available for adjudication (iii) Directing the Assessing Officer to verify the loss of Rs. 3,39, 373.75/- during the assessment year 2011-12. (iv) Ld. CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,82,385/- fowards cash deposits in bank account which is properly explained by the assessee. All the above actions being erroneous, unlawful and untenable must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief." 2. Subsequently, the assessee also filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unlawful and untenable must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief." 3. Briefly stated facts are that for the assessment year in question the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 10,51,885/- in his savings bank account and had entered into share transactions to the tune of Rs. 1,28,01,92,568/- during F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The AO issued statutory notices in response whereof the assessee filed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 5,82,385/- u/s 68 of the Act, thus assessed at an income of Rs. 5,86,360/-. The Assessing Officer qua transactions in shares adopted net profit @ 8% on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the oral objection regards limitation and raised the objection on the reopening of the assessment however same were not recorded in the assessment order. Relied on:- M/s EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. vs The Assistant Commission of Income Tax in W.P. No. 25229 of 2019 dated 19.07.2022 by Madras High Court Bhavani Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in WP No. 804 of 2022 of dated 27.04.2022 by High Court of Judicature at Bombay Jurisdiction:- The ward no.27(3) has originally issued a notice u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 12.07.2012 & 12.06.2013 therefore the present ward no. 61(1) has no jurisdiction to neither issue a notice nor pass any order. The ward no. 61(1) is belonged a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the said year however the AO has failed to lead a single evidence to prove the statement of the assesse incorrect and produced records were fake. It is submitted that the AO has acceded all the records including the loss in the share transaction and received the gift from the family member. However, after knowing the all facts of the case, AO has passed the assessment order which is based on the fiction and imagination of the AO. Objection on the reopening the Assessment The AO has no valid ground for reopening the assessment. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that no objection were filed by the assesse however the assesse has raised oral objection which were not recorded by the AO that why the AO has tiying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Relied on:- Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali vs ITO in ITA No. 3814/Del/2011 of 20.01.2015 Gurpal Singh vs ITO in ITA No. 631/ASR/2015 of 27.05.2016 Both Orders quoted in Shri Baba Yadav alias Anita Yadav vs ITO in ITA No. 5394/Del/2016 of dated 27.04.2017 Ashish Natvarlal Vashi vs ITO in ITA No. 3522/AHD/2016 Without verifying the available records The AO has issued a notice u/s 133(6) to file the ITR however assesse was unable to compliance due to technical reason but the assesse has reiterated his statement that he has no taxable income in the AY 2011-12 and the assesse got the loss in the commodity transactions. Furthermore, the broker has been declared defaulter by the SEBI therefore assesse was un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the threshold of taxable limits for A.Y. 2011-12. 5. On the other hand learned DR opposed the submissions and relied upon the order of the learned CIT(Appeals). 6. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The objections of the assessee against reopening of assessment are multifold. It is stated that in this case the assessment was reopened after expiry of four years. It is further contended that reopening of assessment is without authority of law as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material information. The assessment is barred by time and the lower authorities failed to consider facts and material on record. It is further contended that authorities below failed to ....