9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 170 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - As argued by assessee that no notice u/s 148 was served upon the assessee - HELD THAT -Since the issue of service of notice dated 11.11.2016 have already been considered by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.12.2017 and 16.11.2018 and the contentions of the Revenue have already been accepted that notice dated 11.11.2016 u/s 142(1) read with show-cause notice u/s 144 containing the notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly served upon the assessee through speed post, therefore, the issue stands finally settled by order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2018 and, as such, the subsequent Bench would not be sitting in appeal against the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the SMC Bench. The issue of service of notice u/s 148 has thus, already reached the finality and, as such, there is no need of interference in the findings of the Tribunal in the order dated 16.11.2018. The contention of Ld. Counsel for assessee is thus, devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected Addition as cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee - HELD THAT - The assessee did not appear before AO and no source of cash deposits in bank account has been explained through any evidence. Though the assessee appeared before Ld. CIT(A) but no steps have been taken for making a request for admission of the additional evidences. The assessee merely contended that source of the cash deposits in the bank account of assessee is sale proceeds on selling the agricultural land for which no evidence or material were produced before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has also not produced any evidence before me to contradict the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. In absence of any evidence on record and in absence of any argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for assessee during the course of hearing, no interference is required in the orders of authorities below. - Decided against assessee. No addition can be made in view of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Intezar Ali 2013 (8) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT as not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - The order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that Ld. CIT(A) has considered this decision in the impugned order and did not find the same to be applicable in the case of the assessee, therefore, no fault could be found with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) because assessee did not led any evidence before the authorities below. Assessee's this ground is also dismissed.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice u/s 148 and assessment process. 2. Addition of cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Challenge to the reopening of assessment and addition on merits. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 and assessment process: The appeal was against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The case was picked for scrutiny due to cash deposits in the bank account without PAN quoting. The AO proceeded with ex parte reassessment as the assessee did not comply with notices. The Ld. CIT(A) verified the notices served and found them valid, dismissing the appeal on this ground. Issue 2: Addition of cash deposits in the bank account: The AO considered the cash deposits as income from undisclosed sources due to lack of material and non-compliance from the assessee. The assessee claimed the deposits were from the sale of agricultural land, but failed to provide substantial evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing lack of evidence and non-compliance with IT Rules for additional evidence submission. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on these grounds. Issue 3: Challenge to the reopening of assessment and addition on merits: The assessee challenged the reopening and addition on merits before Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal initially quashed the assessment due to improper notice u/s 148, but upon review, found the subsequent notices valid. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices and lack of evidence to support the source of cash deposits. The contention regarding a High Court judgment was dismissed as the assessee failed to provide evidence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of notices served, dismissed the appeal challenging the addition of cash deposits, and rejected the challenge to the reopening of assessment and addition on merits. The judgment was pronounced on 01.02.2021.
|
