TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence is made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the Bench proposed to hear and dispose of these appeals ex-parte. ITA.No.1829/Hyd./2025 - A.Y. 2020-2021 : 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. General Ground * The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad erred both on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 determining total income of Rs. 7,86,050 as against the returned income of Rs. 6,43,050. B. Invalid Re-assessment u/s 147 * The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 was invalid in law as: a) The conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction were not satisfied; b) There was no tangible material linking any income escapement to the appellant; c) The notice u/s 148 was issued mechanically based only on search information of other entities (M/s Ira Group) without independent application of mind; and d) Accordingly, the reassessment order is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. C. Violation of Natural Justice * The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e operation. Pursuant to the search and seizure action, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 29.11.2013. In response to the notice, the assessee has not filed any return of income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act on 22.10.2024 calling for certain information. The Assessing Officer finally made disallowance of Rs. 35,000/- in respect of out of the claim of deduction u/sec.80C of Rs. 1,50,000/- and also disallowed the claim of exemption u/sec.10(13A) of Rs. 1,08,000/- for want of any supporting evidence. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) but did not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. 5. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal before us including the ground of no sufficient opportunity was given by the learned CIT(A), however, it is clear from the Order of the learned CIT(A) that 04 notices were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance. The learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has restricted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of his claim for deduction claimed on HRA u/s. 10(13A) of the Act and disallowed the claim of the appellant. Further, the A.O observed that the appellant claimed deduction u/s. 80C for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, but evidence was submitted for only Rs. 1,15,000/- towards payment of school fee of his children and therefore the claim was restricted to the extent of Rs. 1,15,000/- and the balance of Rs. 35,000/- was disallowed. 6.5. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant except stating in the grounds that that the rent was paid and the deduction claimed u/s. 80C was genuine, has not submitted any details in support of the claims. The onus to prove the genuineness of the claims made with supporting evidences lies with the appellant which the appellant failed to discharge. In the absence of any evidences in support of the claim of the appellant, there is no reason to interfere with the action of the A.O in disallowing the claim of HRA for Rs. 1,08,000/- and 80C deduction for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- and addition of Rs. 1,43,000/- made on this account is upheld. The grounds of appeal No.2, 3 & 4 is dismissed." 6.2. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statement of a third party recorded during search, without any direct admission by the Appellant. * The reliance on presumption under Section 292C was misplaced, as the seized documents were neither found in the possession nor ownership of the Appellant. * The addition based solely on presumption and inference, without corroborative evidence, is contrary to settled law E. Ground on Non-application of Mind by CIT(A) * The CIT(A) mechanically upheld the assessment order without independent appreciation of facts or examination of documentary evidences. * The appellate order merely reproduces findings of the Assessing Officer and lacks a reasoned adjudication, rendering it unsustainable in law. F. Without Prejudice * Without prejudice to the above grounds, the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- made as unexplained investment u/s 69 and taxed u/s 115BBE is highly excessive and arbitrary, and ought to be deleted or substantially reduced. General Ground The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 9. The only issue on merits is regardin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the above cited notice, your good office has cited the list of transactions pertaining to Ira group of companies. In this regard, I would like to submit that I am a director of M/s Ira Reality Tech Private Limited. This being so, many a times, certain amounts were received and paid by me on behalf of the company. Generally, the accounts team will record those transactions against the specific customer/vendor for the specific project. However, at times while recording the transaction, if the accounts department were not told about the specific project or customer or vendor, they use to record the entry against the name of the person/director who had given/taken the amount. This being so, the transaction remains recorded as payment is made to me or amount is received from me. However, fact remains that these transactions are belonging to the business of Ira Reality Tech Private Limited and does not belong to me. I would like to submit that I have given any money to the company other than investments in shares made by me. Further, the transactions listed in the above referred notice have already been admitted as its business turnover by Ira Reality Tech Private ....