TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing grounds in this appeal: "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the determination of Income of the appellant at Rs. 17,57,185/- as against declared income of Rs. 1,35,000/- in an order of assessment dated 28.12.2016 made under section 147/143(3) of the Act. 2. That the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that, statutory pre-conditions for neither the initiation of proceedings and, nor the completion of assessment under the Act had been fulfilled and, therefore, the same were without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively the above addition ought to have examined the Shri Raghuvir Singh and witness Shri Nepal Singh and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh before rejecting the explanation tendered by the assesses and as such addition made by rely upon the statement of Shri Raghuvir Singh is wholly unjustified. 3.4 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, mere recording of statement of Shri Raghuvir Singh and, drawing adverse inference on basis thereof, neither in law and, nor in fact can be held to be a valid basis to suggest that opportunity had been granted to the assessee. 3.5 That authority below has gravely erred, both on fact and in law in relying on the aforesaid statement, without affording an opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... untenable. 4.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that since the assessee does not maintain books of accounts, addition made and sustained by invoking section 69A of the Act is wholly illegal and untenable. 5. That the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore the same are contrary to principle of natural justice and hence vitiated. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the levy of interest, which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. It is therefore, prayed that, it be held that assessment made by the learned Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have been sourced from her agricultural income. However, the assessee had not disclosed any agricultural income in her ITR. Hence, the AO treated the same as unexplained and taxed it. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as under: "13. Proceeding to the addition made by the AO of Rs. 11 lacs on account of advance stated to have been received from one Sh. Raghuveer Singh, it is seen that the AO has relied on documents submitted by the assessee herself. At para 6 of the assessment order, the AO has pointed out certain inaccuracies and other features of the documents produced by the assessee which create a doubt on their genuineness in the submissions filed by the appellant before the un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission made by the appellant before the undersigned, the appellant has not adduced any evidence except the revenue record to show that the assessee owns agricultural land. Owing agricultural land is one thing and earning income from it is another. I found that the assessee has been unable to discharge the onus to show that the agricultural land actually gave rise to the income of Rs. 5,22,185/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is sustained." 4. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, we heard Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter, the 'Sr. DR'). He requested for dismissal of the appeal and supported orders of lower authority. 5. First issue is in respect of reopening of the assessment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome in his ITR. There may be some factual mistake in recording the reason for reopening the case but it does not demonstrate non-application of mind as claimed by the assessee. Thus, we are of the considered view that the reason recorded prior to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is valid satisfaction. In view of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the reopening of the case. Reopening of the case thus is held valid. Accordingly, this issue fails. 7. The next issue is in respect of the taxability of Rs. 11,00,000/-. The assessee has failed to bring any material on the record to contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) with respect to the advance of Rs. 11,00,000/- received fr....