No AI summary yet for this case.
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, hereinafter called as “ld.CIT(A)” Raipur, dated 30.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2009-10.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in business of trading of liquor. For A.Y. 2009-10, assessee filed his return of income on 30/09/2009 declaring income of Rs. 10.53 lakhs. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147. A notice under section 148 was issued on 10/12/2012 and 14/12/2012. The assessment was Mithilesh Kumar reopened on recording reasons that assessee in its profit and loss account has shown purchase of Rs. 5.5 Crores, but as per details of TDS certificates, purchases were of Rs. 6.9 Crores. On service of notice under section 148, the assessee demanded reasons recorded. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee. The AO after service of notice under section 142(1) proceeded for assessment. The assessment was completed on 30.03.2014 under section 147read with section 143(3). In the reassessment, the AO made addition on account of interest expenses of Rs. 3.03 lakhs, other expenses of Rs. 1.65 lakhs and addition of Rs. 40.03 lakhs by estimating gross profit @5% and thereby added the difference of gross profit declared by the assessee and the gross profit determined by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the AO for reopening as well as various additions, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee besides challenging the validity of reopening and also raised additional ground of appeal that no notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment order is null and void. The ld. CIT(A) recorded his finding at page No.6 of his order wherein it is recorded that the objection of the assessee is misplaced and that no notice under section 143(2) is to be issued in case of reopening. The ld.CIT(A) also upheld the various additions. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
Mithilesh Kumar ITA No.168/RPR/2016