TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEALS: - 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The Id. Addl./Jt Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai erred in rejecting the ground of appeal related to validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961. That on facts as also in law, initiation of action u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 3. The Id. Addl./Jt Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,83,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act being alleged unexplained credit entries in bank account no.56069043767 held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In fact, the appellant was holding 25% share in property i.e. Rs. 13,02,854/- only. So, the information on which notice u/s.148 issued was itself wrong and hence assessment based on such wrong information is invalid and void-ab-initio. However, to co-operate with the department the appellant has submitted all the details as required by the AO on e-proceeding portal.A show cause notice dated 12-12-2019 & hearing fixed on date 16-12-2019 was issued in which the AO proposed an addition of Rs. 9,83,000/- being credit entries reflected in bank account of the appellant. The AO has given a time period of 4 days and required to submit the details within just 4 days. An assessment was finalized by an order dated 18-12-2019 adding Rs. 9,83,000/- to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actorily to explain the source of investment in said property, at any stage, the impugned order passed by authorities below did not require any interference." 6. That the assessee field an appeal against the impugned order date 01.05.2024 before us. (i) During the course of hearing the Ld AR has submitted that the assessee is a HUF share in the acquired property in 30% detail has been submitted in Assessment Proceeding. The assessee file in bank statement also file computation income and balance sheet. The assessee has submitted reply before the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was not concluded. Further re- opening of assessment is bad. (ii) On the contrary the Ld. DR has relied on the order of lower authority. ITR was filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,111/- and assessee has not filed return of income for the year. Therefore, source of purchase of immovable property remains unexplained, hence therefore the case was reopened. The information given in reason recorded by the AO is not correct and immovable property jointly purchase alongwith other three persons (1) Meenaben Vallabhbhai Fefar, (ii) Nanalal Harakhji bhai Patel and (iii)' Vashrambhai Harakhji bhai Fefar (HUF) in equal share (i.e. 25.00%). The amount mentioned in reason is also not correct. In reason recorded by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has paid Rs. 12,52,528/- being twenty five percent (25.00%) share in property. 10. We note that all the information received for reopening of assessment is not correct. Informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 dated 23.02.2018, wherein the Bench at para 6 thereof has held that addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made in respect of those assets/monies/entries which are recorded in the assessee's books of account. In my considered view, the aforesaid decision of the ITAT - Mumbai Bench (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, where the entries are recorded in the assessee's books of account. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 33,23,425/- made under section 69A of the Act is bad in law in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and therefore delete the addition of Rs. 33,23,425/- made thereunder." 12. Considering the above discussion, it appears that the....