Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.l That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that appellant had tendered complete evidence in support of the remittances received by banking channels from remitting companies supported by confirmation and therefore the same could not be held to be unexplained.

2.2 That the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that mere fact, documents are notarized/authenticated by High Commissioner does not in any manner establish creditworthiness of the appellant. Moreover, the contents of the document are not testified. The basic burden was to show with tangible evidence that monies received represented funds held by the appellant abroad and were out of income earned by him in the preceding years is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and therefore unsustainable.

3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 29.2.2012 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the reopening as well as on the merits of the case. Against the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and also relied upon the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A). He stated that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be quashed as such. It was further stated that Ld. CIT(A) as failed to appreciate that there was no material much less valid material to have reason to believe that income of the appellant has escaped assessment and as such, proceedings initiated mechanically and without independent application of mind for the purpose of investigation were not in accordance with law and thus unsustainable. It was the further contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) also wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 38,33,506/- representing remittances received by the assessee and held to be unexplained investment. Ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that assessee had tendered complete evidence in support of the remittances received by banking channels from remitting companies supported by confirmation and therefore the same could not be held to be unexplained. It was further stated that the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that documents are notarized/authenticated by High Commissioner does not in any manner establish creditworthiness of the assessee, are not correct. Moreover, the contents of the document are not testified. The basic burden was to show with tangible evidence that monies received represented funds held by the assessee abroad and were out of income earned by him in the preceding years is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and therefore unsustainable. It was further stated that lower authorities have confirmed the addition by relying on extraneous and irrelevant consideration and overlooking the submission of the companies and in absence thereof, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. It was also not considered by the authorities below that sums raised by the assessee abroad by mortgaging his property could not in law otherwise be treated as income of the appellant without discharging the burden which lay upon the revenue that such loans raised represented income of the assessee. In view of above, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that notice issued under section 147 of the Act and assessment framed under section 147/143(3) of the Act were without jurisdiction and therefore, be quashed and addition so made together with interest levied are not in accordance with law and may therefore be deleted. In support of his aforesaid contention on the legal ground, he relied upon the following case laws by filing the copies thereof and stated that the legal issue in dispute is squarely covered by the following case laws:-