2025 (7) TMI 1309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T (Appeals) is erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition made of Rs. 17,00,000/- u/s.69 of the I.T.Act towards unexplained investment in purchase of Batchmix plant. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that no seized material was found indicating any unexplained investment in purchase of Batchmix Plant. 4. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the notice issued u/s.153C is bad in law and without jurisdiction since there is no nexus between the seized material and the addition made. 5. The Learned CIT(Appeals) would have observed that the addition made of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctions 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In the course of assessment, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 17 lakhs in a batchmix plant, for which the assessee failed to explain the source to his satisfaction. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added Rs. 17 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the addition. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Learned Authorised Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that the satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO under section 153C (placed at page nos. 1-2 of the paper book) clearly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontra, the learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") relied on the orders of the revenue authorities and submitted that the investment of Rs. 17 lakhs made by the assessee in the batchmix plant was not explained to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. It was contended that the addition was validly made under section 69 of the Act, since the assessee failed to establish the source of investment. The Ld. DR, however, did not specifically dispute that no seized document evidencing such investment was found or relied upon, nor did he controvert the limited scope of the satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO referring only to Rs. 10 lakhs receivable. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the revenue authorities and ....