9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent-assessing authority against the appellant under Section 142(1) of the Act. The case of the appellant has been that he received notice u/s.142(1) on 3.8.2007 even though the time prescribed for initiation of assessment proceedings came to an end on 31.7.2007. Thereafter, another notice dated 21.5.2008 was received through registered post fixing the date of hearing for 28.8.2008. On that date, the authorised representative of the appellant appeared before the assessing authority. He was handed over the query sheet. The appellant filed a letter pointing out specifically that the notice u/s.142(1) was received by him on 3.8.2007, which notice was beyond the time prescribed for initiation of the proceedings. Hence the proceedings wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to furnish the explanation of the sources for such cash amount. This unexplained amount has been treated as assessee's undisclosed income. The stand of the appellant-assessee, however, was that as per the documents sought to be placed on record by way of application under Rule 46A of the Rules, the cash deposits represent advances received on sale of land and therefore did not fall within the ambit of income prior to the execution and registration of respective sale deeds, which sale deeds have not been executed and/or registered during the financial year under consideration. As such, the assessee did not indulge in either furnishing any inaccurate particulars or of concealment of any income, as no income had accrued during the year. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation either before the Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings or before the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee has not uttered even a single sentence about the source of the deposit made in the bank account and therefore when no explanation at all was furnished by the assessee then the question of the same being bonafide does not arise. We may at the outset take note of the fact that the order of the Tribunal dated 13.2.2015, against the order of CIT(A) 31.3.2011 and original assessment order of Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2008 was challenged before this Court by assessee in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.103/2015. The coordinate bench of this Court dismissed the appeal vide order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31.7.2007, the proceedings became time barred and thus the action of the Assessing Officer was incompetent. Coordinate bench of this Court in the earlier judgement dated 25.4.2016 has rejected the aforesaid argument by relying on judgements of various High Courts and the Supreme Court. We cannot while examining the correctness of the judgement passed against the same assessee, albeit in respect of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), go into the correctness of the aforesaid judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court. The Tribunal in our considered view has rightly held that the assessee failed to furnish any explanation about the source of deposit made in the bank account and when no explanation whatsoever has been furnished b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
