9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s handed over to the Postal Authority on or before 31-12-2007 that being the last day of the limitation. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that assessment was barred by limitation. It be held accordingly. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the assessment completed by the A. O. exparte under S. 144 of the Act as it was so made violating the principles of natural justice. It be set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and as the Return of Income filed belatedly on 04-12-2007 it factually means the return of income was before the A. O. before ex pate assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act. In such circumstances it is settled law that A. O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived u/s.285BA of the Act that the assessee has made deposits of Rs. 14 lakhs in cash in her Savings Bank account, notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee calling for the return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06. Despite service of notice on the assessee on 31-08-2007 there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which another notice was issued. Since there was noncompliance again, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14 lakhs being cash deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee as unexplained investment. 6. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee. However, there was noncompliance for which the Assessing Officer issued another notice calling for certain details. Still there was no compliance for which the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s.144 making addition of Rs. 14 lakhs as unexplained deposit in the savings bank account. The Assessing Officer has also did not allow the basic exemption limit while completing the assessment u/s.144 of the I.T. Act. I find in appeal, in absence of any satisfactory explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of deposit, the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 10. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the entire deposit of Rs. 14 lakhs in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
