2019 (5) TMI 2045

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case an in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,63,315/- being alleged receipts on sale of car parking and on-money. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs.16,500/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making the above addition of Rs.5,63,315/- and Rs.16,500/-, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Similar issue arose in the case of the appellant's group company case i.e. M/s Anantnadh Constructions & Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 5505/M/2016) for the AY 2009-10. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2017 held at para 6 as under: "6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening the case which is reproduced in the order. It is evident that AO had precise and definite information as regard to escapement of income of Rs.5,01,049/- since the said income was declared as additional income before Settlement Commission. The assessee has not disclosed its amount in the return of income. The AO had sufficient information regarding reopening the order and moreover assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and on-money and addition of Rs.16,500/- being prior period expenses. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the above addition made by him. 7. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the appellant submits that in absence of any material proving that the appellant had really earned any undisclosed income, it is not justifiable to make addition to its returned income solely relying on the petition of the appellant before the ITSC, more particularly when neither there is any direct evidence nor any corroborative proof that the appellant had earned income which is undisclosed. Further, it is submitted that merely a disclosure in the ITSC petition, without substantiating any evidence, cannot by itself be a l....