1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05 arises out of first appellate order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 30-07-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 31-12-2018. The grounds taken by the assessee read as under: -
The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) in so far as it is against the assessee is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case.
Reopening of Assessment :
1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under sec.147 of the Act.
2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening was based only on change of opinion by the officer since the credits in the names of M/s. Jaya Printers and Dr. Namadhu MGR are part of the regular books that was considered by the officer in the assessment u/s.143(3) and hence the reopening is untenable in law.
3. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and in the absence of any fresh material pointing to failure on the part of assessee to disclose particulars of income, the reopening is not in accordance with law and needs to be annulled.
4. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that there was no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, since the credits in M/s. Jaya Printers and Dr. Namadhu MGR had been considered in the assessment u/s.143(3) and hence the reopening is untenable in law.
5. The CIT(A) ought to have duly considered a catena of judicial decisions holding the assessment u/s. 147 as invalid, where there was no fresh material or where there was no failure of the assessee to disclose material facts and thus annulled the reopening of assessment.
MERITS:-
6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,40,000, being the credits in the books of M/s. Jaya Printers.
7. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire credits are duly reflected in the books of M/s. Kodanad Estate and hence the confirming the addition is unjust and unwarranted on facts of case.
8. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the withdrawals from M/s. Kodanad Estate, in which the assessee is a partner, was credited in M/s. Jaya Printers and utilized for making tax payments and hence considering the books of both the concerns, and hence considering the same, the addition needs to be deleted.
9. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,50,000 as rent received from property in Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate.
10. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee does not own any property in the Industrial Estate fetching any rent and is also evident from the IT and WT statements for other asst. years and hence the addition made on mere surmises is unjustified and needs to be deleted.
11. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.94,12,899, received by assessee as advertisement advance under sec.68 of the Act.
12. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount was received as advance from various parties for publication of Tamil New Year Malar/ souvenir by Dr. Namadhu MGR and credited in the books as advance and hence there was no basis to confirm the trade advance received by assessee as unexplained credits.
13. The CIT(A) further f........