2025 (1) TMI 1632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds of appeal:- "1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of order passed by the Ld. AO, when reopening of assessment is bad and illegal as reasons for reopening of assessment is not provided and on incorrect facts. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment though Ld. PCIT has granted mechanical approval u/s 151 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment order passed by the Ld. AO no notice was issued u/s 153C of the Act and by relying upon the information/documents pertains/relate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uing only on the point of procedure, but has not given any evidence in support of the source of 99,85,000. A substance explanation explaining the source of such investment would have been more in favour of the appellants stand than questioning the process. The appellant has not done anything to prove the source of such investment. 5.25 There is an entry in books of account of Rajyash/ Samarth Group, in the name of appellant and it is duty of appellant to satisfy the AO on this account regarding the sources. The onus is on appellant to satisfy the AO that it has valid sources to make an investment of 9985000. the appellant has thus grossly failed to do so. Regarding the year of taxability it is very clear that it belongs to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther, the assessee had also requested the concerned Assessing Officer to provide copy of documents relied upon him for reopening the assessment, however, despite the specific request of the assessee, such documents were not furnished to the assessee so as to allow the assessee to rebut the same. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that reassessment proceedings were also initiated by the concerned Assessing Officer for the succeeding assessment year as well and the "reasons for reopening the assessment" in the succeeding assessment year were also identical i.e. that the assessee had made unaccounted investment amounting to Rs. 99,85,000/-. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had no clarity as to ....