SHYAM BABU KESARWANI,KAUSHAMBI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), KAUSHAMBI
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 110/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A
u/s 69A of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained money is not correct since the amount was deposited from definite sources which fact duly verified by the then assessing officer hence action on same material by the assessing officer simply on change of opinion and his action as confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified.
6. That
