9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brushed aside. Copy of the documents place show the ld. Commissioner has not put his signature on the reasons recorded by the AO. Therefore, various objections raised by the assessee before us, which have been noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs require adjudication afresh on merit at the end of the Revenue authorities. We set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) with direction to consider various issues and objections raised by the assessee, both on the facts and in law and pass a speaking order.We allow the quantum appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 658 AND 659/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2023 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President And Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Anil Shah, AR For the Revenue : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER By way of the above two appeals, the assessee challenges orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 21.12.2018 and 24.12.2018 respectively under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act for short]for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial justice was to be preferred. Thus, we condone the impugned delay in filing both the appeals, proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 4. Now coming to the merits of the quantum appeal in ITA No.658/Ahd/2019, the grounds raised are as under: 1. The impugned Order passed by the Ld. ITO and to the extent uphold by the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad is bad in law, passed against the natural rule of justice, without giving proper opportunity of being heard and is based on an inappropriate appraisal of facts and is liable to be quashed, 2. The Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the order without having jurisdiction to pass the same and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the same. 3. The Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the order U/s. 144 of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the same. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in passing the order without assuring the proper service of notice of hearing and without considering the fact that, the appellant had not received the notice in time and did not get proper opportunity to explain the reason for being unable to attend the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Therefore, the AO proceeded to frame assessment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. 6. During the impugned assessment, the AO based on the information received from Investigation wing of the Department that the assessee maintained account with HSBC Bank, and on verification it was revealed that there were unexplained credits of Rs.2,98,56,934/- from the third party account for Asst. Year 2011-12. The AO obtained bank statement under section 133(6) of the Act. Since the assessee had not filed return for Asst.Year 2011-12, the AO sought for explanation and details in respect of huge cash/cheque deposits found in the bank statements. However, the assessee failed to explain the transactions. In the absence of the explanation/reply from the assessee, the cash credit aggregating to Rs.2,98,56,934/- appearing in the bank accounts was treated as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee, and exparte assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 was accordingly passed by the AO. 7. This exparte assessment order was challenged before the ld.CIT(A). The grievance raised before the ld.CIT(A) by the assessee mainly w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nerate-4 (Income Tax), Ahmedabad. The appellant has not specified as to how the AO has acted without jurisdiction. Hence, the AO has made the order well within his jurisdiction, the jurisdiction u/s.147 is also acquired after obtaining due approval of Pr. CIT-4 as requisite. Hence, I do not find any lack of jurisdiction of AO. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 of the appeal is also dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is related to the order u/s.144 of the Act. No specific assertion is made in furtherance of this ground by the appellant. From the impugned order it is abundantly clear that AO issued and served notice u/s.147, and further notices calling for specific details before issuing final notice proposing to complete the assessment ex-party on 04.08.2017. Thus, AO has followed the procedure and given the appellant ample opportunities before making the assessment ex-party u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. In view of these facts I do not find any merit in this ground of appeal and accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground No.4, 5 6 pertain to additions on account of unexplained credit amounting to Rs.2,98,56,934/- by the AO. Appellant has contended that the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere recorded by the AO without any application of mind since the AO had mentioned escapement of income for Asst.Year 2010-11 in the reasons recorded while jurisdiction for reopening was assumed for A.Y2011-12; iv) Though the AO had mentioned about two bank accounts, but he had possessed only information with regard to one bank account only; v) That there is no service of notice under section 148 on the assessee, and even copy of the notice was not furnished to the assessee. vi) Service of notice was not in accordance with Section 282 of the Act read with Rule 127 of IT Rules. 9. A brief note on the objections of the assessee was filed before us whose contents are reproduced hereunder: 1. Reasons Recorded : a. PB, Pg. 39-40 : Item at sr. No. 12 on Pg. 40 Shows that, PCIT has not accorded any satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s.148, b. PB, Pg.41 : Annexure being reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s. 148, second Para thereof records AO s satisfaction states that, As per the provisions of Sec. 149(109b), the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 is more than Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us in the PB. From the materials available, we find that the assessee has not been provided with adequate opportunity to put forward its defense/explanation with supporting evidences to make out its case that the action of the Revenue authorities are not valid. When the Revenue authorities noticed that the notices could not be served upon the assessee, it has not carried out its primary responsibility to ascertain the company, against which notices were issued, and proceedings under section 148 was contemplated, whether was existing or not. Documents filed in the PB before us show that it was intimated to the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee-company was defunct and was struck off from the record of the ROC. Further, the contention of the assessee that while recording the reasons, the AO has not applied his mind and has not even obtained the approval as required under the law before issuing the same, cannot be simply brushed aside. Copy of the documents placed at PB page no.42 show the ld. Commissioner has not put his signature on the reasons recorded by the AO. Therefore, various objections raised by the assessee before us, which have been noted by us in the foregoing paragraphs r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
