9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtained by the AO as required by law. In any view of the matter and in any case the action of the learned CIT(A) in not deleting the additions/setting aside the order of the AO is bad in law as the same was passed without issuing and serving a valid notice under s. 148 to the assessee. 3. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in not taking the cognizance of financial statements and other submissions i.e. balance sheet, details of sources of deposits in banks, books of accounts, confirmations of creditors etc. In any view of the matter and in any case the action of the learned CIT(A) in not taking the cognizance of financial statements and balance sheet, details of sources of deposits in banks, confirmation of creditors etc. and without hearing/adjudicating is bad in law, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice in facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in making the total/full addition of Rs. 24,27,518 on account of deposits in bank as full income of the appellant under s. 69A of the Act is not attracted. 5. That the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed will be constrained to complete the assessment in her case under s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961. Again on the date of hearing none attended the proceedings nor any reply was received in this office. Another show cause dt. 20th Nov., 2009 was sent through speecf post asking the assessee to furnish the requisite information on or before 7th Dec., 2009. The assessee was asked to show cause as to the amount of Rs. 24,27,518 may not be added her total income. Again no reply was received from the assessee. The repeated non-compliance by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee has no information to offer. 3. Keeping in view above facts and non-cooperation from the assessee, I am constrained to pass the order on ex parte basis, to the best of my judgment, on the basis of information available on record, under s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961. As discussed above, there are total credits of Rs. 24,27,518 in the bank of assessee. The assessee is not filing her return of income. She has not even disclosed source of investment in bank. The non-compliance on her part is a clear indication that the assessee has no explanation to offer. Therefore, I have every reason to presume that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO, Ward 3(1), Srinagar. 5.3 That the assessee has agitated and challenged the validity and legality of the notices issued to her under s. 147/148 of the Act. On her Natipora, Srinagar address which have neither been served on the assessee nor ever received by her to justify initiation of proceedings under s. 144/147 of the Act. The file of the assessee with the Department in itself is a witness to the fact that no such notices has ever been served on the assessee with the result the proceedings initiated against the assessee are served of any legal standing. The AO has deliberately remained silent on the validity and legality of the notices issued/served on the assessee for obvious reasons best known to him. The assessee requests for your Honour to examine the file of the assessee with the Department to establish the legality and validity of the notices purported to have been served by the AO on the assessee. 5.4 That as per the order passed by the AO, it has been stated that the proceedings have been initiated on 11th Nov., 2008 whereas the approval for issuance of notice under s. 147/148 of the Act has been obtained/received from Addl. CIT after a long gap on 30th March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credited during the year under consideration. After recording reasons the AO sought approval from the then Addl. CIT, Range-3, Srinagar to issue notice under s. 148 and accordingly issued notice under s. 148 on 30th March, 2009 to furnish the return of income but there was no response from the appellant side. Thereafter, the AO issued detailed questionnaire as discussed in p. 2 para 1 of the assessment order and after giving sufficient opportunities of being heard took whole of the amount of Rs. 24,27,518 as assessee's income for the year under consideration and taxed the same. 6.2 I have considered the submission of the appellant, remand report and comments of the appellant on the remand report. Firstly, the appellant is agitating the issue of initiation of proceedings under s. 147 by stating that the AO has initiated proceedings without approval of Addl. CIT but later on taken the approval ex post facto. I do not agree with the assertion of the appellant. Even if on the last date of time barring month the AO has taken permission for issuing the notice, it is very much valid and the appellant does not have any cause of grievance. Secondly, the appellant has agitated the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to take shelter on technical ground. This argument of the appellant has no force and hence rejected. 6.4 The appellant throughout his submission has emphasized on lack of jurisdiction, lack of service of notice and chose not to comment on the merits of the case. There is no denial that the aggregate amount of Rs. 24,27,518 had been credited in the bank account of the appellant at the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Chanapora, Srinagar. Thus onus was on the appellant to explain each and every credit entry in her bank account. This has neither been done before the AO nor before me. In the absence of explainable source for the said deposits, I hold that the AO was right in making addition of Rs. 24,27,518 under s. 69 of the IT Act, 1961." 4. The learned counsel for the assessee argued with regard to issuance of notice under s. 148 that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not taking the cognizance of the fact that as per the assessment order, the permission of the Jt. CIT was taken vide letter No. 1147 dt. 30th March, 2009 and there is no mention of the notices issued earlier by the AO i.e. notice dt. 23rd Jan., 2008, letter dt. 8th Nov., 2007 as mentioned in his letter dt. 11th No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the return for asst. yr. 2003-04 and then concluded that because of non-filing of the return for the asst. yr. 2003-04 the AO Ward 3(1) has valid jurisdiction of the assessee. It was further stated that the learned CIT(A) has completely ignored the fact and documentary evidence placed before him that the assessee was seen assessed at Delhi Ward 46(4). The learned counsel further stated that it is a known fact of law that at a particular time there can be only one jurisdiction for the assessee and that jurisdiction lay with AO, Delhi. In case of CIT vs. Aar Bee Industries (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 1: (2013) 90 DTR (Del) 274 (dt. 5th July, 2013), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that there cannot be two AOs at a single point of time. The learned counsel stated that the referred case pertains to the order of this Bench i.e. Tribunal, Amritsar which has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that 'There could be only one AO in respect of a case--at point of time when present appeals are filed AO insofar as all the cases of assessee are concerned was AO at Delhi". It is accepted by the CIT(A) as well as AO th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te return filed originally or its proof thereof. 3. As per the information available in this office, you have deposited an aggregate amount of Rs. 24,27,518 during the financial year 2002-03 relevant to the asst. yr. 2003-04 on different dates in the saving bank account No. 332, J&K Bank, Chanpora,. You are requested to please intimate the following : (i) Your source of income during the year and your gross income. (ii) Source of the amount deposited as per the details given above, along with documentary evidence. (iii) Give details of your personal and household expenditure during the year. (iv) Reply to letter dt. 8th Nov., 2007 (copy enclosed for reference) 4. Your reply should reach this office by 27th Nov., 2008. Notice under s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 is enclosed herewith. Yours faithfully, (Satbir Singh) ITO, Sgr." 8.1 Also notice under s. 142(1) dt. 11th Nov., 2008 placed at paper book- 7 is reproduced for the sake of convenience as under : "In connection with the assessment for the asst. yr. 2003-04 you are required to : (a) prepare a true and correct return of your income/the firms income/family's income/the local authority's income/the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns have been filed in New Delhi, itself. As regards the findings of the AO that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the asst. yr. 2003-04 and therefore, jurisdiction vests with the ITO, Srinagar cannot hold good for the reasons that the assessee had filed first return of income for the asst. yr. 2005-06 and for the earlier years, she was not taxable and therefore, no return has been filed for those years, and the jurisdiction in any case can lie only with one AO in respect of the case and there cannot be jurisdiction of a case with two AOs of two different jurisdictions, as has been held in the case of CIT vs. Aar Bee Industries (supra) and headnote of the same is reproduced for the sake of convenience, as under : "It was true that the reference to the case was with regard to the jurisdiction of an IT authority, but it was also true that the jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the situs of the AO. When the AO itself had been changed from one place to another, the High Court exercising jurisdiction in respect of the territory covered by the transferee AO would be the one which would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 260A. Even in case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
