TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion it is not permissible by another A.O. to reopen the assessment on the very same issue and pass the order under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. When the PAN was available with the Department and an order had already been passed under section 147/143(3) for the same assessment year for the same reason, therefore, the second order passed by the A.O. dated 07.12.2017 in my opinion does not stand in the eyes of Law unless and until the first order is withdrawn. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the second order passed by the ITO, Ward-32(2) in the instant case does not survive since there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year with the same PAN by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit when the identity and creditworthiness of the lender was duly proved. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in adding sum of ₹ 30,00,000/- in the assessable income of the appellant on purchase of car when source of investment in car was duly explained by the appellant. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the loan confirmation of Mrs Bhagwati of advancing loan of ₹ 30,00,000/- to the appellant. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of assessment order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017 asking the assessee to file return of income for the A.Y. 2010-2011 within 30 days of service of such notice. However, the same remained uncomplied with. Subsequently, notices issued under section 142(1) were also remained uncomplied with. Since there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee, the A.O. completed the assessment under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 43,02,250/- by making addition of ₹ 15,02,250/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 being the unaccounted cash deposit and ₹ 28 lakhs being the cost of motor car purchased. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the additions on merit, challenged the validity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Devi as advance for purchase of some agricultural land for her, but, the deal could not be materialized and as per the understanding with Mrs. Bhagwati Devi a car was purchased by the assessee for ₹ 28,25,000/- and ₹ 1,75,000/- was incurred on insurance, road tax and accessories for the motor car. The bank account of the assessee was filed to substantiate the source of money from Mrs. Bhagwati Devi along with copy of her bank statement, income tax return, copy of acknowledgment of return and computation of income. 4.3. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. After obtaining a remand report from the A.O. and considering the rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report, the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account is out of sale of agricultural land and the source of purchase motor car is the amount received from Mrs. Bhagwati Devi towards some advance for sale of land which was utilised for purchase of the car. Assessee had already filed the bank statement and copy of the income tax return along with computation of Smt. Bhagwati Devi from whom the assessee has received the advance. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually the order passed by the A.O. which is upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. It is a peculiar case of reopening of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh his authorized signatory and after due verification of all the documents, the Assessment order was passed vide order dated 04.12.2017 by the IT0 Ward 28(5) New Delhi. 3. The Appellant was not aware about the notices sent by the second Assessing officer i.e., impugned ITO ward 32(2) as they were being sent to the brother's address who did not pass the message relating to receipt of any notice as the appellant did not had any good terms with the brother due to family property dispute. The appellant has not been residing at that address and had shifted in 2009 to Faridabad later on to Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Hence, the assessee wishes to submit that he has not received any opportunity of bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
