2023 (6) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., filed his return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 10.08.2010, admitting total income of Rs.1,76,230/-. Based on a piece of information received from DDIT (Inv), Unit-III(1), Visakhapatnam vide letter No.DDIT/UIII( 1)/VSP/132/VPG/2012-13 dt.24.07.2012 during the course of post search investigation of the said officer in the case of M/s Vizag Profiles Group, that the assessee has invested an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- viz., Rs.21,66,000/- for civil works, Rs.12,60,000/- for land and a portion of cash worth Rs.30,74,000/- in Green City Project of Vizag Profiles group during the F.Y.2009-10, the Assessing Officer(AO) reopened the case by issue of notice u/s 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to produce the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dmission so as to rebut the statement. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, holding as under : "that the reasons to be recorded by the AO for taking decision to reopen the escaped assessment does not mean that such reasons are to be communicated along with the notice itself. The notice directed the appellant to submit his returns. If the appellant was of an opinion that he required the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, then he would make a request and accordingly the same shall be furnished by the Assessing Officer to the appellant. Therefore, the contentions made by the appellant are not acceptable. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the action of the Assessing O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10-11, but the AO failed to provide the information / evidence basing on which he proposed to make the addition and deprived the assessee of the opportunity to put forth his submissions. Therefore the assessment is bad in law. The Ld.AR relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 and submitted that the Apex Court held that the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Hence, the Ld.AR prayed for annulling the assessment and delete the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR contended that during the search, information was....