TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch, the subsequent Bench would not be sitting in appeal against the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the SMC Bench. The issue of service of notice u/s 148 has thus, already reached the finality and, as such, there is no need of interference in the findings of the Tribunal in the order dated 16.11.2018. The contention of Ld. Counsel for assessee is thus, devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected Addition as cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee did not appear before AO and no source of cash deposits in bank account has been explained through any evidence. Though the assessee appeared before Ld. CIT(A) but no steps have been taken for making a request for admission of the additional evidences. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the findings of authorities below. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that no ITR is available in this case. The case was picked up for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information regarding cash deposits in saving bank account by assessee during assessment year under appeal without quoting of his PAN. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 16.03.2016 after obtaining approval of the Pr. CIT, Meerut and notice was sent through speed post. The notices u/s 142(1) were also issued time to time but the same returned undelivered. Finally on receipts of bank statements from the bank, notice u/s 142(1) read with show-cause notice u/s 144 was issued to the assessee on 11.11.2016 requiring him show-cause as to why ex parte assessment be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of land was ₹ 33,28,225/- but the purchaser has written the documents for ₹ 12,99,200/-. The purchaser has misguided the assessee as well as the stamp authorities also. The source of the assessee in bank deposit was out of sale proceeds of agricultural land. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) on verification of the record found that notice u/s 148 dated 16.03.2016 has been issued after taking approval of the competent authority. It was handed over to postal authorities on 19.03.2016 as per stamp on the envelope. The said envelope was returned on account of incomplete address due to absence of father s name. Similar is the notice u/s 142(1). The Ld. CIT(A) called for the AO and the assessment record and found that final show-cause notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled relevant facts here. 9.1 The assessee on ground no. 1 2 has challenged the orders of authorities below that assessment is bad in law because no notice u/s 148 was served upon the assessee. The ITAT SMC Bench vide order dated 14.12.2017 held that no notice u/s 148 has been served upon assessee, therefore, assessment is directed to be quashed. Ground no. 1 2 of the appeal of assessee were accordingly allowed without deciding the appeal on merits. The Revenue filed Miscellaneous Application No. 141/2018 against the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by SMC Bench. The Revenue explained in the miscellaneous application that the order dated 14.12.2017 is not in accordance with law and there is a factual mistake in the order while quashin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed to be fixed for hearing fresh on 15.01.2019. The SMC Bench also did not relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court cited by the Counsel of assessee because the facts were clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand. The Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue was, accordingly, allowed vide order dated 16.11.2018. The Registry has thus, fixed the appeal of assessee for hearing on merits. 10. Ld. Counsel for assessee contended on ground no. 1 2 that order of the Tribunal in MA dated 16.11.2018 is incorrect. Ld. Counsel for assessee has however, admitted that no appeal has been preferred by assessee against the subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2018. Thus, the order dated 16.11.2018 of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account is not explained. Ld. DR, therefore, submitted that appeal of the assessee on these grounds may be dismissed. 14. After considering the submission of the Ld. DR, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. It is not in dispute that assessee made cash deposits of ₹ 34,40,225/- in his saving bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank, Mawana during assessment year under appeal. The assessee did not appear before AO and no source of cash deposits in bank account has been explained through any evidence. Though the assessee appeared before Ld. CIT(A) but no steps have been taken for making a request for admission of the additional evidences. The assessee merely contended that source of the cash depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
