9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l apply to all proceedings which are pending on 1 st April, 2008 Decided against assessee. Addition on account of unsecured loan received The receipt of brokers with respect to the shares is given in the name of the assessee and not in the name of Maya Devi/Singh and on the other hand Ms. Maya Devi had shown the shares in her balance sheet - Held that:- The assessee failed to substantiate his claim by way of material evidence and proper explanation The sources of funds were not properly explained and there were loose ends in the explanation Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1902/Hyd/2011 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Rama Rao For the Respondent : Shri K. E. Sunil Babu ORDER Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member:- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-V, Hyderabad dated 12.9.2011, for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income on 1.8.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.4,60,300 including short term capital gains of Rs.3,66,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not vitiated because the Authorised Representative of the assessee has appeared during the assessment proceedings ad did not object to the notices, and accordingly rejected the contentions of the assessee in that behalf. Further, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a petition seeking admission of additional evidence with respect to the additions made by the AO. After calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the admissibility of the said additional evidence, and on consideration of the submissions of the assessee on various additions made in the assessment and contested before him by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed only the addition of Rs.11,17,000 made on account of unsecured loan from Ms. Maya Devi, while deleting the rest of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and consequently partly allowed the appeal. 4. Still aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) ought to have held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before this Tribunal. In view of the provisions of s. 292BB, mistake on account of belated service of notice is a curable mistake. Since the assessee has not raised such a plea before the AO, and fully participated in the assessment proceedings, the so-called mistake in serving the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, stood cured, on account of the assessee's action in ignoring the same and participating in the proceedings before the AO. Learned counsel for the assessee has contended before us that the recently inserted provision of s. 292BB, effective from 1 st April, 2008, is applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09 only, and since the present appeal relates to assessment year 2005-06, the saving provision of that section does not come to the rescue of the Department. We are afraid, such a plea cannot be accepted, for the reason that the provision of s. 292BB is only a procedural one, and as such, it applies to all the pending proceedings, irrespective of the assessment years, to which they relate, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons International vs. CIT (2011) 60 DTR ( P H) 393, wherein it was held- "... The provision has been made effective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and the assessment order has been passed within the period of limitation, we are of the view that the assessee is precluded from raising the validity of initiation of proceedings before the appellate forum in view of the specific bar u/s 292 BB of the Act. For such a proposition, we follow the decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons International (supra) and the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Navayuga Spatial Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is therefore rejected/dismissed. 6. In the present case before us, the AO has stated that initial notice was issued by his predecessor on 15/07/2007, which was issued in time and served on the assessee in time, but, the acknowledgment could not be traced. However, in response to the fresh notice issued on 26/05/2008, the AR of the assessee appeared before the AO on two occasions and submitted the information called for, but, on both the occasions the AR of the assessee had not raised the issue that initial notice was served beyond time. Later, the assessee filed application on 08/09/2008 stating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
