TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der u/s 147/144 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/144, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,50,200/- by recording incorrect facts and findings, without considering evidences on record and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Senior DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and the same of initiating reassessment proceedings the AO has not required to collect all the relevant documentary evidence and to verify them. The Assessing Officer is only require to have prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as per mandate of section 147 of the Act, and therefore the objections of assessee is not tenable and the same may kindly be dismissed. 5. On careful consideration of above submissions I am of the view that the AO after obtaining approval as per requirement of section 151 of the Act, of PCIT Ghaziabad issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, by recording following reasons:- As per AIR information available with this office that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO as has been reproduced hereinabove it is clear that except copy of AIR information there was nothing else in the hands of AO at the time of initiating reassessment proceedings and issuing notices u/s. 148 of the Act. Even in the reasons the AO noted wrong facts that the account is owned by sole operator Shri Vipin Kumar, and amount of cash deposited by him during A.Y. 2010-11 was Rs. 15,50,200/- whereas the copy of statement of bank account clearly shows that the assessee was not sole operator of said bank account but he was joint account holder with Ms. Bhavana and amount of cash deposit was not Rs. 15,50,200/- and it was higher figure then noted by the AO. From the reasons it is clear that the Assessing Officer after receiving the....