TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 2.2 That the both has failed to appreciate that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 opportunity of cross examination, and as such has violated the principal of natural justice. 4. That the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot 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 Income Tax Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be quashed and, further addition so upheld by the learned Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 undersigned, this point raised by the AO has not been satisfactorily met. The appellant has mentioned that the genuineness of the stamp papers Issued for the agreement was verified by the A/o ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue as under: "12. The first ground taken by the appellant is that the proceedings u/s 148 taken up by the AO are without jurisdiction. This claim of the assessee stems ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 from Shri Raghuveer Singh. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. We therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the addition of Rs.....