TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued u/s 148 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. Consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that there is sufficient grounds for reopening and same is done following due process of law and consequently dismissing the grounds of appeal challenging validity of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13 lacs out of addition made by A.O, at Rs. 15.50 lacs on account of unexplained investment. 4) The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that investment with Wasanker Group stands fully explained considering the cash flow statement and bank statement submitted by assessee. 5) Addition sustained a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee has made investment at Rs. 16.50 lakh with M/s Wasankar Group. Reasons recorded have been reproduced at Page-1 & 2 of the assessment order. The amount given was explained by submitting details of bank account to show that the amount has been withdrawn from bank in previous years as well as in the current year. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee stating that such explanation is not tenable in the eyes of the law. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15.50 lakh as unexplained investment within the mean of section 69 r/s section 115BBE of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by sustaining addition of Rs. 13 lakh on account of unexp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there was cash withdrawals of Rs 14,70,000/-, cash deposit of Rs. 3,97,000/- and investment in Wasankar Group Company at Rs. 15,50,000/-. 8 & 9 .......... 10. ......... However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view of past savings, it would be justified if relief of Rs. 2,50,000 is made and addition of unexplained investments is confirmed and restricted to Rs. 13,00,000, to be taxed w.r.t. section 115BBE." 5. Before us, the learned Counsel, Shri Kishore Dewani, appearing for the assessee submitted that it is settled proposition of law that provisions of section 69 of the Act are not mandatory. Explanation adduced in the case of the assessee is reasonable. The assessee has no source of act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see before the Assessing Officer contained in Page-13 to 17 of the assessment order and the before the learned CIT(A) as contained in Page-7 to 12 of its order, has not been disputed as to the facts and evidence on record. We also find that no reason is indicated in the assessment order and/or in the impugned first appellate order as to why the explanation of the assessee is not being accepted. Mere investment with M/s Wasankar Group by itself is no reason to derive belief for escapement of income as has been concluded in the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961. The addition made in the assessment framed at Rs. 15.50 lakh and sustained by the learned CIT(A) at Rs. 13 lakh is unjustified and unsustainable considerin....