TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order on 31.10.2016 and issuing the demand notice u/s. 156; penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c). Such mistake in mentioning the assessment year wrongly in subsequent correspondences are nothing but mistake apparent from record with was recognized later and rectified by the AO by passing a valid order u/s. 154 of the Act on 13.01.2017. The argument of the assessee on this account fails and therefore, it was rightly held that the assessment order dated 31.10.2016 is a valid order, which does not need any interference on my part, hence, uphold the action of the CIT(A) on the issue of dispute and reject the grounds raised by the assessee. Assessee did not file any evidence in support to explain the source of investment of his hal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CIT(A) on the merits - decided against assessee. - ITA No. 2505/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Sh. H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Chaman Singh, CA For the Revenue : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 31.1.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Noida pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That the impugned Assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in law, wrong on facts and against the Principal of natural justice hence is unsustainable. That the impugned Assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is wrong, having no base and against the circumstance of the case, Ld. AO had made addition on the basis of AIR information o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,26,645, please be deleted. 5. The assessing officer had issued the notice for assessment year 2010-11, but the agriculture land purchased in assessment year 2009-2010.which is not valid and the order should be deleted 6. Assessee had purchase two property jointly for ₹ 35,32,800 with stamp duty, assessee had paid his share ₹ 17,66,400 with stamp duty .which had been paid from assessee's earlier savings and gift received from his relatives. Details and proofs of investment will be produced at the time of hearing 7. The addition made by the A.O. is devoid of any merits and is away from the factual matrix of the case and based on just an imagination and on fimsy ground. Submission was not made by the assessee beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Assessee had not received any notice u/s. 148 of the Act i.e. any notice under section 148 of the Act had not been served on the assessee, so assessment order us. 147/144 of the Act is void ab initio. In the assessment year 2009-10, assessee had not purchased any agriculture land, assessee had purchased agriculture properties vide sale deeds dated 09.11.2009 as these transactions are not relevant for AY 2009-10 and hence, the impugned order is clearly illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. It was further submitted that assessment order was passed by AO without issuing notice u/s. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceedings and issuing the statutory notice to the assessee. I further note that notices u/s. 142(1) and notice u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act were also issued to the assessee by mentioning the assessment year correctly. The typographical mistake in mentioning the assessment year was occurred for the first time in passing order u/s. 271(1)(b) on 26.7.2016 and notice was issued u/s. 156 of the Act for demand of ₹ 10,000/- continued the mistake by mentioning assessment year 2010-11 instead of 2009-10 and same mistake continued in further correspondences till passing the assessment order on 31.10.2016 and issuing the demand notice u/s. 156 of the Act; penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c). Such mistake in mentioning the assessment year wrongly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount paid by the assessee. In view of the same, 50% of the total consideration of ₹ 20,00,000/- and ₹ 10,00,000/- i.e ₹ 15,00,000/- and stamp duty of ₹ 4,32,300/ (Rs. 3,67,900/- and ₹ 1,64,900/- paid over such purchase amount, totaling to ₹ 19,32,300/, should be considered as unexplained investment in the hand of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. I note that the case law cited by the Ld. AR is distinguished on facts of the present case. Hence, the assessee gets relief of ₹ 33,85,200/- and the remaining addition of ₹ 19,32,300/- was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the case and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
