2023 (7) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the appeal. 2. The appellant humbly reiterates all the facts and grounds of appeal raised before the Ld CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) has blindly confirmed the Assessment order. 3. The CIT(A) has committed a mistake on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provision and scheme of the Act. The CIT(A) has not considered legal and factually that the reasons recorded u/s 148 has no relevancy with material available on the record. The reasons recorded under Sec. 148 are different from material available on record. There is no vital link between reasons and evidence. 4. The CIT(A) has committed a mistake by treating the amount received from Sh. Duli Chand as appellant's income. It is contrary to evide....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 15,00,000/- which he received from Shri Duli Chand and the authorities below without considering the facts, evidences and the contentions made the impugned addition. 4. Apropos to grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening is illegal on account of the fact that the additions have not been made in respect of the issues which were the basis for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In this regard the assessee has placed reliance on various case laws as under: - Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 (ITAT) Delhi; - CIT Vs. Smt. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.); - Smt. Kantamani Venkata Satyavathi Vs. ITO (1967) 64 ITR 516 (AP)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the addition. Before the lower authorities it was claimed by the assessee that the amount was received from one Shri Duli Chand. The assessee also filed affidavit of Shri Duli Chand. The Authority below without considering the same sustained the addition. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the authorities below is highly unjustified. 8. On the other hand, learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. As a matter of fact, from the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act it is revealed that out of cash deposits of Rs. 1,95,20,000/- the AO himself accepted the source of deposits to the tune of Rs. 1,78,84,359/- as explained and made addition of the remaining amount of Rs. 16,36,141/- treating the sam....