KRS Impex vs ITO Ward 34(1)

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre [CIT (A)"] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the application of condonation of delay in filing of appeal filed by the assessee.

3.

On the and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in dismissing the appeal despite the fact that assessee has sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time limit and therefore dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO despite the fact that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act as well as consequent re-assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act are illegal, without jurisdiction, barred by limitation & hence liable to quashed.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment despite the fact that the reassessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act has been passed ignoring the first proviso to section 148 which provides that notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless there is "information" with the AO at the time of reopening which suggests that income chargeable to tax in the case of assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the AO has erred in law in reopening of the assessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s 144 despite the fact neither there is any relevant material available with the AO nor the same was supplied to the assessee at the time of reopening on the basis of which he believed that the information received by him suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the reassessment proceedings despite the fact that the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by AO is bad in the eye of law as the information on the basis of which notice under section 148 issued are bad in the eye of law and are vague and there is no live nexus between the information and the belief formed by the AO.

8.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144 is illegal and void ab initio as the same has been passed by the AO despite the fact that the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 by the AO have been issued and passed without obtaining valid statutory prior approval from the specified authority as provided under section 151 of the Act.

(ii)

That the purported approval is illegal, mechanical in nature and has been given without application of mind.

9.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in reopening of the assessment proceedings without due application of mind.

10.

(i) On the and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,30,523/- on account of foreign remittances treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

(ii)

That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged amount represents the amount paid against the import of goods duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee.

(iii)

That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite the same has been made by the AO under section 69A of the Act despite the provisions of section 69A are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee.

11.

(i) On the and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of 1,54,06,898/- made by the AO on account of import transactions under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the contention of the assessee that the alleged amount represents the assessable value of import of goods whereas actual invoice value of Rs. 1,12,15,90/- has been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee.

(iii)

That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed despite the same has been made by the AO under section 69 of the Act despite the provisions of section 69 are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee.

12.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the abovesaid additions despite the fact that the same has been made by the AO by indulging in surmises without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions.

13.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”