TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N, J. Appellant by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. ORDER This is assessee s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly dated 14/8/2017 for assessment year 2014-15, taking the following grounds of appeal:- 1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Assessment having been issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act without the issuance of a mandatory Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, deserves to be quashed and consequently the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming such Order of Assessment, deserves to be set-aside and annulled. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Order of Assessment, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch Order of Assessment, deserves to be quashed. 6. BECAUSE, wholly without prejudice to the aforementioned, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of ₹ 12,62,100/-made by the Assessing Officer and having been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is both bad in law as well as one facts. The authorities have failed to acknowledge that the investment made by the assessee, is duly explained and made from disclosed sources of income ADDITION OF ₹ 12,62,100/- 7. BECAUSE, wholly without prejudice to the aforementioned, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of ₹ 12,62,100/-made by the Assessing Officer and having been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is further unsustainable in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been produced. Following is the notice issued on 28/8/2015 under section 143(2) of the Act [This is the notice referred to at page 1 of the assessment order]:- 6. As evident from the above notice, it was served not on the assessee, but on one Abdul Wahid. The Department has not been able to show this notice to have been served on either the assessee, or on his agent. Therefore, the assessee is correct in contending that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served on him. 7. In Harsingar Gutkha (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT , 20 taxmann.com 713 (All.), it has been held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, as follows:- A perusal of the provisions of Section 143 (2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
