9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case. 2. The Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated that there is no due service of notice by the Respondent Assessing Officer before concluding the best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The 1st Appellate Authority ought to have appreciated that the notice issued under section 142 (1) of the Act was returned by the postal authorities with the comment 'no such office' and therefore there is also no due service of notice issued under section 142 (1) of the Act. In the result. 4. The authorities below have erred in not considering the reply filed by Appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings; i. After coming to know about the assessment proceedings under section 144 Appellant filed a suitable reply before the learned assessing officer, however the reply has not been considered judiciously by the assessing officer. This aspect has not been appreciated by the learned 1st appellate authority with true spirit. Therefore it is submitted that there is gross violation of the provisions of section 144 and also the Principles of Natural Justice requiring a remand to the respondent assessing authority for fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from other general costs such as labour, machinery, administrative costs, etc. iii. The Appellant followed the project. completion method of accounting and did not offer any income to tax during the assessment years in question since rip project was completed. Appellant had not competed even 25% of the project during the assessment years in question. iv. In addition, the project in question ran into litigations on account of the disputed land, delayed development of the layout, non-payment of developmental charges, etc and the appellant was not able to complete even 25% of the project. Appellant has followed project completion method and since there was no successful completion of the project Appellant has not been able to declare any income. Appellant has been forced to return the moneys to the depositors in order to save the promoter and the Managing Director from contempt of courts. The authorities below have failed to appreciate thesefacts despite they were placed before them. v. The learned assessing authority has not given any findings as to why the payouts made by the appellant as reflected in the bank accounts towards various expenditure shall not be allowed a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the sale deeds favouring the intending purchasers during the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011- 12. 6. The learned assessing authority refused to furnish the reasons for recording supporting the reopening of the assessment under section 148 in spite of a specific request from the appellant and therefore the reassessment order is void. i. The authorities below erred in not providing the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under section 148 despite the Appellant made a request in this regard. Therefore there is violation of provisions of section 147 and thus the assessment orders are vitiated. The said act of the respondent assessing authority is in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 SC ii. The authorities below failed to appreciate that there was no income that has escaped the assessment for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, given the fact situation that there were no sale deeds executed by the appellant during those 2 assessment years. The authorities below erred in not appreciating that there is no element of profit in the deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lained investment that were not recorded in the books of accounts and that the explanation offered by the appellant about the nature and sources of such deposits was not satisfactory in the opinion of the assessing officer, when no such findings are forthcoming from the assessment order. The lacuna in the assessment order in passing a judicious order cannot be filled in by the learned appellate authority. iii. The learned CIT appeals erred in holding that appellant has failed to establish the nature and source of unexplained investment by adducing any credible and verifiable evidence, ignoring the information produced before him regarding the development of land, formation of layout, advance received pursuant to the agreements entered into with the customers and the court orders passed are subsequently directing refund to customers on account of a to develop the land, etc. iv. The learned CIT appeals erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to mention only a specific section under which the unexplained investment of the appellant became assessable and the omission is only a credible defect while the assessment order does not speak anything about unexplained inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
