BUDANUR NAGARAJU VINAYKUMAR,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, MANDYA

The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)"), insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, preponderance of probabilities on facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The impugned reassessment proceedings are bad in law, non est and passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The impugned reassessment, proceedings are without jurisdiction and consequently, the assessment order is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The mandatory procedures applicable for reassessment proceedings are not followed and consequently, the impugned proceedings are void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act is non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act is issued without granting the mandatory period of 7 days to file a response and consequently, the said notice and the entire re-assessment proceedings are bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appropriate sanction necessary for reopening the assessment was not accorded and consequently, the impugned proceedings are vitiated on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appropriate sanction necessary for reopening the assessment is not accorded by proper authority and the proceedings conducted on such sanction are bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The order passed under section 148(d) of the Act is non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is non est, bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed at a total income of Rs. 3,76,70,958/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 3.76,70,958/- being cash withdrawals made from the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the rigours of section 69A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. 16. The Appellant denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234F of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned Assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 18. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.