9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in construction of building. 2. Deletion of additions by treating them as agriculture income against the business income. 3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained advances received. 4. Confirmation of addition towards advance received from various persons for purchase of plots as non-genuine. 5. Confirmation of addition on account of purchase of water pump. 6. Validity of service of notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Construction of Building The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,75,456/- on the grounds that the source of investment was not furnished before the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing, violating Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. The assessee argued that no additional evidence was furnished before the CIT(A), but the source of investment was explained from the entries in the books of account produced before the A.O. The CIT(A) verified the sources and provided relief, which the tribunal found justified. 2. Deletion of Additions by Treating Them as Agriculture Income Against the Business Income The Department argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions of Rs. 6,57,493/- and Rs. 80,000/- by treating them as agriculture income, contrary to the A.O.'s treatment as business income. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the Lekhpal's report denying the growing of certain crops. The tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this issue due to the legal issue's precedence. 3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Advances Received The Department contested the deletion of Rs. 6,77,600/- on account of unexplained advances, arguing that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the identity and genuineness of transactions remained unexplained before the A.O. The tribunal did not address this issue separately due to the resolution of the legal issue regarding the service of notice. 4. Confirmation of Addition Towards Advance Received from Various Persons for Purchase of Plots as Non-Genuine The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,95,000/- out of Rs. 5,87,000/- appearing as liability towards advance received for purchase of plots. The assessee claimed that the advances were through account payee cheques, and the onus was discharged. The tribunal did not address this issue separately due to the resolution of the legal issue regarding the service of notice. 5. Confirmation of Addition on Account of Purchase of Water Pump The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,800/- for the purchase of a water pump, arguing that there was sufficient cash balance to prove the purchase. The tribunal did not address this issue separately due to the resolution of the legal issue regarding the service of notice. 6. Validity of Service of Notice Under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act The primary issue was the validity of the service of notice under section 143(2). The assessee filed the return on 08/11/2007, and the A.O. issued a notice dated 29/09/2008, which was sent by Speed Post to an incorrect address. The tribunal found that the notice was not served within the stipulated period, rendering the assessment proceedings null and void. The tribunal referenced various case laws supporting the requirement of timely service of notice, including CIT vs. AVI-Oil India Ltd. and Nulon India Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer. The tribunal concluded that the assessment framed without serving the notice was void ab initio and quashed the assessment. Conclusion The tribunal allowed the Cross Objection of the assessee on the legal issue of the validity of the service of notice under section 143(2) and dismissed the Department's appeal. The assessment framed under section 143(3) was declared invalid due to the failure to serve the notice within the stipulated period.
|
