2025 (6) TMI 1709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lidated the proceedings. made under section 147 of the Act as the same is bad in law, The order U/s 147 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. General ground 2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without actually considering the factual matters of the case and has erred in not concluding the impugned assessment order as bad in law General ground 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,37,700/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A. The order u/s 250 of the Act 22,85,761/- 4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to be appreciated the fact that assessee has already provided the documentary evidences to establish source, creditworthines....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 3. Ground Nos. 2, 8 and 9 are regarding validity of the reopening of the assessment on the based on the information for the transactions of purchase and sale of immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 1 crore. The learned AR has referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer placed at page No.43 of the paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment without application of mind and merely reproduced the information received from the Income Tax Officer (Inv.) Visakhapatnam about the alleged purchase and sale of immovable property. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the income assessable to tax to the tune of Rs. 1 crore has escaped the assessment. Further, the Assessing Officer has no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....but wanted to verify the fact whether the income assessable to tax has escaped the assessment or not. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi (Supra) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that there is a difference between the reasons to believe and reason to suspect and reopening is permitted only when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe and not reason to suspect. He has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Krishna Murthy Ella v. Dy. CIT in ITA No.585/Hyd/2023, dated 14/08/2024. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that it is a case of non-filer of return of income, as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s purchased an immovable property to the tune of Rs. 31,11,500/-. Therefore, in the absence of any return of income or otherwise declaration of this transaction by the assessee, there is a tangible material to form the belief that the income assessable to tax to the extent of investment of Rs. 31,11,500/- in purchase of immovable property has escaped the assessment. Moreover, in the course of assessement proceedings, if the assessee is able to explain the source of investment, then no addition was required to be made. Hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merits in the grounds challenging the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The decisions relied upon by the assessee cannot apply to the fac....