DHANJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI MOTKA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1), BHAVNAGAR

आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2

(1): The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the re- assessment proceedings u/s 148 submitted to be without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the section 148 and without properly appreciating the submission made by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. (2): The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 33,43,247/- made u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment without properly appreciating the facts, explanation and evidences adduced before the Income tax officer during the course of assessment proceedings. (3): The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 in as much as that the assessee has filed return in-response to notice u/s 148 and without considering the submissions made during the assessment proceedings rendering the passing of Ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act. (4): He has erred in law and facts in applying provision of section 115BBE to the facts of the assessee without appreciating the facts available on record in as much as that the provision of section 69 are submitted to be not applicable to the facts of the assessee and thereby rendering the levy of tax u/s 115BBE as erroneous. (5): On the facts of the assessee the return income ought to have been accepted and no addition u/s 69 of Rs. 33,43,247/- ought to have been made. (6): On the facts of the assessee no interest u/s 234A, 234B ought to have been levied. (7): The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and to modify any ground of appeal.

A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 The assessee shall submit all the submission/documents and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2025