9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1. That the Ld. A.O. has erred both in law and on facts while issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the assessment made by Ld. Income Tax Officer, ward-4, Patan is bad in law, illegal and void ab-initio. 2. That the Notice issued U/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is barred by limitation, and without jurisdiction, therefore the proceedings itself is bad in law and requires to be quashed. 3. That the Notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by Income Tax Officer, ward-4, Patan is without satisfaction as defined u/s 147 and U/s 151(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore the assessment my please be quashed. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), Gandhinagar has partly sustained the addition without considering the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 31.03.2018. In response to the above notice there was no compliance from the assessee and subsequent notices were also not replied by the assessee, therefore, show-cause notice dated 20.11.2018 was issued for finalizing assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee did not respond the same. Hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,31,600/- after giving benefit of cash withdrawals made and from the account and re-deposited in the account to the extent of peak amount treated the same is unexplained income of the assessee. 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. A.R. subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. A.R. relied upon the decision of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwadi vs. ITO (2015) 53 taxmann.com (Delhi-Trib.). The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions as well : (i) Sunrise Education Trust vs. ITO (Guj. HC) (ii) ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Girishkumar Mohanlal Puruswani ITA No. 405 to 407/Rjt/2016, ITAT - Rajkot Bench (iii) Ashish Natvarlal VAshi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Navsari (ITAT - Surat) ITA 3522/Ahd/2016 (iv) Mariyam Ismail Rajwani vs. ITO, Ward - 3(2), Surat, ITA No. 676/Ahd/2016 (ITAT -Ahd) (v) Dadasaheb Vithoba Navale vs. DCIT, ITA No. 255/Pun/2019 and ITA No. 266/Pun/2019, ITAT- Pune (vi) Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani vs. ITO, ITA No. 1240/Pun/2019, ITAT Pune On merit the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh deposit. Thus, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the addition was just and proper. As relates to reason recorded the Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order. 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the reasons recorded in assessee and her son's case are identical and the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons stating therein that the assessee has entered into monetary transaction i.e. cash deposited in the saving bank account and no return of income was filed by the assessee. But the basic fact that assessee is not eligible for filing return of income was not taken into account and therefore, there was no application of mind while recording the reasons for reopeni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
