RAJESH MANGILAL PUROHIT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the reopening the case under section 147. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening upheld by the CIT(A) was wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice which deserves to be quashed as it is out of juri iction. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in not considering the legal position that the reopening cannot be initiated for rowing and fishing inquiry. It is a well settled position of law that provisions of Section 147 cannot be used merely to inquire a transaction. 2.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the invocation of the provisions of Section 147 merely because the AO received information from investigation wing. The AO has acted mechanically on the information which is against the principle of law. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the following additions totalling to Rs.1,84,04,100 made without any credible evidence: (i)Fictitious loan transactions from Jignesh Shah Rs.10,98,352 (ii) Financial transactions from Naresh Jain Rs.52,74,896 (iii) Benefit from the script Goenka Business and Finance Limited of Rs.1,19,03,387 (iv) Estimate of Commission @ 2% from Jignesh Shah and Naresh Jain Rs.1,27,465 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs. 1,84,04,100 when the AO himself recorded that after examining voluminous documents submitted by the assessee, no suspicious transaction was found, yet proceeded to make additions in a contradictory and mechanical manner. Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3–

3 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has not given or taken any accommodation entry and all transactions were conducted through registered brokers in open market through recognized stock exchanges with proper documentary evidence. 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the AO failed to procure details from the impugned broker as well as the concerned banker. The AO neither issued notice u/s 133(6) nor conducted any inquiry to procure the data from any third party, thereby making additions in cursory manner without any independent verification.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and / or on facts in upholding the invocation of the provisions of Section 115BBE. 4.2 That in the law and/or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the invocation of the provisions of Section 115BBE without passing a speaking order and / or granting opportunity of being heard on the invocation of the specific provision. 5.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or facts in not granting opportunity of being hearing through video conferencing. 5.2 That in the facts and/in the law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of video conferencing is mandatory in the newly faceless appeal proceedings.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.