9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act in a mechanical manner as putting "Yes only" by the Pr. CIT. 3. That the order passed was further wrong, because the appellant has already disclosed the bank account, in which total cash was deposited of Rs. 44,96,955/- in his ITR filed on 03.03.2011, which has already been accepted as correct by the Deptt. 4. That the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 was fundamentally wrong, because the appellant has already produced, filed and placed upon records the necessary evidence with regard to the deposit of entire cash of Rs. 44,96,955/-, which has not been taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer and by the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the additions of Rs. 7,45,118/- vide her order dated 28.06.2019. 5. That the orders passed were further wrong as not tenable under the law and to the facts of the case, because the appellant is filing his ITR regularly as eligible u/s 44AF of the I.T. Act 1961, therefore, in the preceding year i.e. 31.03.2009, he has disclosed his sundry debtors of Rs. 7,50,000/- which has also been accepted as correct by the Deptt. 6. That prior to make and hold the additions of Rs. 7,45,118/- by the Assessing Officer and by the Ld. CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use no notice if any has ever been issued or to have been served u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. The grounds raised in penalty appeal No. 6909/Del/2019 read as under :- 1. That the penalty order passed on 21.05.2018 u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act, is perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, therefore, not tenable, because of initiating the same in a routine manner without specification of any charge as contained at Page No. 2 of the assessment order passed on 10.11.2017, even in the notice issued, does not contain the initiation of any specific charge. 2. That the penalty order passed on 21.05.2018 becomes infructuous as the ITAT set aside the quantum of additions made vide order reference no. ITA/5932/Del/2018 dated 01.04.2019. 3. That the penalty order passed as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is also wrong on facts and erroneous on the point of law, because she has failed to consider that the penalty has been initiated in a routine manner in the assessment order and in the notice also, without specification of any charge. 4. That the penalty order passed is further perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, because the appellant has already produced, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had made the total cash deposits of Rs. 46,60,538/- in savings bank account with Punjab National Bank during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11 whereas the gross receipts as declared in Income Tax Return was Rs. 39,15,420/-. Assessee was required to explain the difference amount of Rs. 7,45,118/- between the bank statement and income tax return. The explanation given by the assesee was not accepted by the AO and lastly the AO was of the view that addition of Rs. 74,518/- under the head 'from other sources' as per provisions of section 68 of the Act wherein any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee maintained for any previous years and the assessee has offered no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, the sums so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year and therefore, the AO added Rs. 7,45,118/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act in the total income of the assessee and also added Rs. 38,298/- thus assessing the total income at Rs. 9,41,870/- vide order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the AO and mechanical approval granted u/s. 151 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, I am of the view that both the additional legal grounds needs to be admitted in view of Apex Court decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 389 (SC), hence, I admit the same. 8.1 I have also perused the assessment order and I am of the considered view that the AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act on 10.11.2017 without issuing mandatory notice us. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, 324 ITR 372 (2010) (SC) wherein, it has been held that in the absence of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed. Even otherwise, I find that Ld. Pr. CIT has granted the approval in a mechanical manner by putting only "Yes" which is not valid for initiating the reassessment proceedings. Thereafter, the AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case laws applicable in the case of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
