TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds notice validity, remits unexplained investment case for fresh consideration</h1> The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the IT Act. The addition of Rs. 21,500 ... Validity Issues Involved:1. Validity of service of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act.2. Validity of ex parte assessment framed under Section 144 of the IT Act.3. Addition of Rs. 21,500 on account of deposit in SB a/c No. 457.4. Addition of Rs. 17 lacs on account of unexplained investment in purchase of FDRs.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Service of Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act:The assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was served on his wife, not on him personally. The CIT(A) held that service on the wife was valid since there was no other male member in the family and the assessee was abroad. The Tribunal upheld this, citing Section 282(1) of the IT Act and Rule 15 of Order V of the CPC, which allows service on any adult member of the family, male or female. The Tribunal found the service of notice on the wife in the absence of the assessee to be in accordance with law.2. Validity of Ex Parte Assessment under Section 144 of the IT Act:The assessee argued that the ex parte assessment under Section 144 was invalid as the notices under Section 142(1) were not properly served. The CIT(A) disagreed, noting that notices were served by affixture and that the assessee did not provide evidence to support his claim of being out of the country. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that due opportunity was given to the assessee, and the assessment was rightly completed under Section 144.3. Addition of Rs. 21,500 on Account of Deposit in SB a/c No. 457:The AO added Rs. 21,500 as unexplained investment. The assessee claimed it was from a prior withdrawal of Rs. 21,000. The CIT(A) rejected this, stating the assessee failed to prove the recycling of the withdrawn amount. The Tribunal did not provide further analysis on this issue, as the primary focus was on the larger sum of Rs. 17 lacs.4. Addition of Rs. 17 lacs on Account of Unexplained Investment in Purchase of FDRs:The AO treated the purchase of FDRs as unexplained investment. The assessee argued that the funds belonged to Shri R.K. Samuel, who had deposited the money and later asked for its premature encashment. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting the assessee's poor financial condition and the affidavit from Shri Samuel confirming the funds were his. The Tribunal found the matter directly related to the case of Shri R.K. Samuel, which had been remitted to the AO for fresh decision. Consequently, the Tribunal also remitted the present case to the AO for a fresh decision in line with the outcome of Shri Samuel's case.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the ex parte assessment under Section 144. The addition of Rs. 21,500 was not specifically addressed further. The addition of Rs. 17 lacs was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration in line with the related case of Shri R.K. Samuel.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
