9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us in law as well as facts of the case and thus the assessment framed on the basis of invalid proceedings is also bad in law. 2. That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by Principal CIT for cash deposit in bank account is bad in law as no addition for deposit of cash of Rs. 9,49,500/- in AXIS Bank and Corporation Bank account and Rs. 1477/- on account of interest can be made when the primary ground, on the basis of which reassessment proceeding u/s 147 were initiated, cease to exist as held in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT', 336 ITR 136 (Del), therefore the order passed by CIT is un-jurisdictional. 3. That, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law as well as on facts in assuming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sort of enquiry should have been made by him. 7. That the order u/s 144//263 passed by the Id. AO on 23.03.2022 consequent to order u/s 263 is invalid as the same is passed without generating any DIN which is against the CBDT Cir. No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, which requires that no communication by Income tax Authority shall be issued after 01.10.2019 to the assessee unless a computer generated DIN has been generated and is duly quoted in the body of the order, whereas no such DIN is given in the assessment order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, based on the information regarding some financial activities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. PCIT has reopened the case merely because no action for Assessment Year 2011-12 could be initiated u/s 148 of the Act in view of the fact that Assessment Year 2011-12 is already barred by limitation on 31/03/2018 itself. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the A.O. has made proper enquiry as per MNS data available for the year and there is no lack of enquiry on the part of the A.O., therefore, invocation of provision of Section 263 of the Act is erroneous. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT on account of cash deposit in the bank account is bad in law as no addition for deposit of cash of Rs. 9,49,500/- in Axis Bank and Corporation Bank Account and Rs. 1,477/- on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four legal heirs including the Assessee before the A.O. Further contended before the A.O., that the whole sale consideration in cash was used to purchase another house property along with his wife. After verifying the reply and the document produced by the Assessee, A.O. made no addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account and passed assessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act on 13/11/2018. Further, it is also contended by the Assessee that the Assessee has deposited the cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 07/02/2011. Thus, it is clear that, the Ld. A.O. made proper enquiry and it is not the case that no enquiry has been made by the A.O. to invoke the provision of Section 263 by the PCIT. Thus, in our considered opinion, invocation of prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
