MADHU DWIVEDI,SONEPAT vs. ITO WARD -3, SONEPAT

This assessee’s former appeal ITA No.8036/Del/2019 raises the following substantive grounds: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred both in law and on facts in party upholding the order of Ld. Assessing Officer and partially confirming the addition of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition to the tune of Rs. 5,74,682/-. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in partially affirming the addition without giving any reason at all and is completely a non-speaking order. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has erred in both in law and facts in partially confirming the addition on adhoc/ estimation basis in absence of any material evidence in hand and ignoring the settled position of law that there can be no addition on estimation basis. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Rohtak, has grossly erred in settled position of law that reopening/reassessment u/s 148 / 147 of the Income Tax cannot be sustained on the basis of borrowed information and without application of mind.

Coming to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening under section 148/147 of the Act, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the lower authorities herein had taken note of the assessee’s cash deposits followed by the corresponding reopening reasons that her taxable income had escaped assessment. No merit is found therefore in the assessee’s instant first and foremost ground. 5. Next comes this sole issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned CIT(A) has already modified the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings assessing the assessee’s cash deposits/turnover from that @10% to 8% only followed by yet