ITO 32(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MITESH K JAIN, MUMBAI

In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal. (i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in considering 3% of the deposits against 20% (Assessment Year : 2007-08) estimated by the A.O. as fair income of the assessee in the absence of any material evidence on record." (ii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in arriving at cash deposits of the assessee at Rs.49, 75,300/- instead of Rs .1,35,86,6841 -." (iii) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in taking into account only one bank account instead of two bank accounts held by the assessee for consideration." (iv) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not cooperate with the department in connection with assessment proceedings for the preceding years and current assessment year and modus operandi of his business activities is unknown." (v) "The appellant prays that the order of the Ld CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." (vi) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground."