TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance of the AR in case of Y Narayana Chetty vs. ITO [1958 (10) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] is relevant in present case, therefore, the notice itself is bad in law and void ab-initio. Thus, the assessment order does not survive. - ITA Nos.3201/Del/201 And ITA No. 6783/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2019 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, And Shri Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel And Shri Anit Gupta Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Sanjay Goyal CIT-DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, dated 29.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. vi. That CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding the addition of ₹ 75,00,00.00 on account of short term capital gain and reject the submissions of the appellant solely on the basis of remand report submitted by the AO. The CIT(A) has failed to take into consideration relevant evidences put before him and ignored circumstances of the case. vii. That the evidence and explanation given by the appellant and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judiciously interpreted and instead solely relied on remand report of AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the penalty has been levied against the assessee. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. iv. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the A O has erred in law and on facts in imposing the penalty of ₹ 25,24,500.00 U/s 271 (1) (c). The CIT (A) has erred the upholding the same. v. That, the A O, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred in levying penalty on the ground of addition on account of Short Term Capital Gain at ₹ 1,04,38,715.00 and reject the explanation given by the appellant merely on surmises and conjectures. The addition made is debatable and cannot be treated as concealed income. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Industries Ltd. The amount of ₹ 92,55,000/- was requisitioned u/s 132A of the Act from S.H.O. Kairana on 15/02/2008. The seized money could not be explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A of the Act on 26/03/2008 requiring the assessee to file the return of income falling within six assessment years as referred to in clause (b) of Section 153A of the Act. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 28/03/2008. At the time of survey, excess stock of raw material and finished goods were found to be short by 1.37 crores approximately. In response, the assessee submitted that the returns of income originally filed may be treated as filed in compliance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued. The Assessing Officer framed assessment order for Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2007-08. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment is based on vague and invalid notice u/s 153A and 153C dated 26/03/2008 where section 148 of the Act is mentioned. These facts were duly and promptly objected by the assessee on 23/04/2008 and the same objection was never disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the proceedings based on vague and invalid notice cannot be continence/contested. The Ld. AR further submitted that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mechanical notice dated 26/03/2008 nowhere mentions any assessment years, there is no link to the date of search and as to the assessee s case. The ld. AR relied upon the various case laws to that effect. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the notice is valid as the assessment order has itself mentioned each assessment years separately. The Assessing Officer has given separate finding to that effect. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessee Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly made additions on merit. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on record. From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 153A r.w.s. 153C/143(2) of the Act, it is a clear cut case of overlooking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
