Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 193 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment u/s. 147 - non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) - assessee filed letter beyond 30 days from the receipt of service of notice u/s. 148 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is no dispute with Ld. AR that the assessee filed letter which is beyond 30 days from the receipt of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, according to Ld. DR, no notice u/s. 143(2) is required to be issued in response to such letter, the AO treating the original return as on record, rightly issued notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) both dated 07-08-2012. Onus of filing of ROI on the assessee is a responsibility which is cast upon him to be fulfilled by him, if he fails to take benefit of any of the provisions of law, the assessee cannot plea that the notice u/s. 143(2) should have been issued. In the present case, the assessee filed a letter dated 18-01-2014 requesting to treat the original return of income as in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since, the same is beyond specified time the AO cannot take cognizance of the same and proceeded with the assessment considering the notices issued u/sec. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act on 07-08-2012. Therefore, the contention of Ld. AR that no notice u/s. 143(2) issued subsequent to the letter dated 18-01-2014 is not acceptable and rejected. Thus, the additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition on account of alleged cash receipts on sale of land - addition based on loose papers - HELD THAT:- There had been no corroborative evidence and no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee in terms of alleged entries of loose papers. Unless it is established on record that as a matter of fact the cash payment as alleged by the respondent-revenue did pass to the assessee from M/s. Krupa Land Pvt. Ltd. it cannot be said respondent-revenue had any right to make any addition. On perusal of the statement of Dilip Dherai no conclusion can be drawn that the entries in loose papers belongs to assessee representing cash payment. Even the CIT(A) clearly held in the impugned order AO squarely failed to carry out necessary investigation/enquiries from the buyer M/s. Krupa Land, meaning thereby, the CIT(A) also discredited the entries alleged to have been found in the seized loose papers of annexure 1-4, as dumb documents. When the seized loose papers Annexure 1 to 4 by itself, in our opinion, did not indicate receipt of alleged cash payment and no relevancy to the year under consideration, therefore, addition confirmed by the CIT-A to the extent of Rs. 3,33,06,667/- is not justified. Thus, ground raised by the assessee are allowed. CIT-A in applying ratio of 40 : 60 (cash : cheque) without considering notings in the seized loose papers - HELD THAT:- As no date and indication of nature of transaction with reference to figures mentioned therein is reflected. Further, the AO in his order observed that the assessee received payment on 15.10.2008 and 20.10.2008 which supports the view taken by us that the Annexure 4 is not relevant to the year under consideration. Further AO refers to Annexure 4 and held the last six figures of Rs. 9,28,72,500/- is matching with the amount of Rs. 78,72,500/- basing on which the CIT-A in the impugned order held that the assessee admitted to have been received 40% of cash amount amounting to Rs. 3,33,06,667/- which is very close to the figures of Rs. 20 lac plus Rs. 78,72,500/-, in our opinion, have no basis in view of his further observation that the AO squarely failed to carry out necessary investigation/enquiry from the buyer. Therefore, with the detailed discussion in assessee's appeal and the reasons above, we find the order of CIT-A is not justified and is set aside. Decided against revenue.
|