9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n nature. As per the Ld. counsel, the assessee had not entered anything of all the transaction with the party during the financial year. In fact, any of the Revenue Authorities had not made any cross examination in between the assessee and the party. The documents relied on the Ld. AO was not properly verified through the cross examination. The reasonable opportunity of the assessee should not be denied. We decide that the matter should be returned back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication. Accordingly, we are setting aside the ground of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication. On the other hand, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity for redressal the grievance. - I.T.A. No. 108/Asr/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2022 - Dr. M. L. Meena, Accountant Member And Sh. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. And Sh. Avish Majhajan, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar [in brevity the CIT(A)], bearing Appeal No. 28/2016-17 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the additions made cannot be justified in view of the said material and explanation. 11. That the AO erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234B of the IT Act. The AO has failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed on record by the assessee. 12. That the AO erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) , 27IB and 271A without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The above objections are without prejudice to each other. The assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing. 3. The assessee also filed the additional ground which is annexed as follows: Ground 10: That notice issued u/s 148 and the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are illegal bad in law and without jurisdiction. The initiation of re-assessment proceedings is illegal and bad in law. Ground 11: That the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the additions made therein are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. Further relied on the order of CIT, Faridabad v. M/s Cebon India Ltd. 2012 347 ITR 583 (P H), the relevant para is inserted as follows: 5. We find that concurrent finding has been recorded by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal on the question of date of service of notice. Notice was not served within the stipulated time. Mere giving of dispatch number will not render the said finding to be perverse. In absence of notice being served, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make assessment. Absence of notice cannot be held to be curable under Section 292 BB of the Act. 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued but during the argument did not able to throw any light related to validity of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act related for assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. 7. The Ld. counsel further argued that this additional ground was never taken before the ld. Assessing Authority or before the ld. CIT(A). The issue is taken first time before the ITAT. The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged one cheque issued by the assessee. The complaint was filed by M/s Shivam Communication against the assessee U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. But as per order of the Judicial Magistrate, Batala in an order dated 02.03.2015, Criminal Complaint no- 362/2011 (APB page 43-52), the M/s Shivam Communication was held to be guilty of tempering the cheque. This order is before the date of reasons recorded. The Ld. counsel further mentioned that the Ld. AO during reasons recorded did not apply his mind. In this respect, the Ld. counsel argued that M/s Shivam Communication is nothing but a habitual offender. 12. The Ld. counsel further argued that the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) mechanically approved the reopening u/s 148. The Ld. JCIT only had written valid reasons approved , even without putting the date on the same so the approval is mechanically in manner. 13. The Ld. DR further mentioned that after a detailed discussion with the Ld. JCIT made the approval. In the reasons recorded, the issue is fully described. So, the Ld. JCIT should not require a detailed descriptions which was already done by the Ld. AO in detailed manner. It is not a mechanically approv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
