TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Any error or omission in the contract does not make whole contract void. I am enclosing a table of transaction between Lalit Construction and myself for your perusal and consideration. The word "Loan" may please be read as "advance". It is the discretion of contractor how to make payment to the sub-contractor. The LT. authority has no jurisdiction to look into the condition of contract, you have only authority to check P & L account only. Hence, I request you to restrict yourself to the issues related to taxable income only. I had taken security deposit of Rs7,50,000 from Lalit Construction, which was returned under the threat of Shri Bala Nadgoankar sitting M.L.A. and Ex. M.o.S. Home (Rural) Government of Maharashtra. I state that Mr. Ashok Munot who is related to Vasundhara Construction had furnished my financial detail to one Mr.D.K. a gangster of Gavli gang who was killed in police encounter, who delivered threat to my life. This Ashok Munot is an associate of Lalit Construction. One attempt was made on my life where I fired in self defence. I was falsely implicated u/ s.307 of LP.C. by Kashi Mira police and as a result of this I was kept in prison as an under trial prisoner f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings. However, before the ITAT could set aside the assessment vide order dated 18.2.2005, assessee filed a revised return on 11.02.2005 making certain more claims which were not accepted by AO, as this is not a valid revised return. Thereafter assessee requested AO to consider the same under section 154 vide letter dated 10.08.2005. These requests were also not considered as AO felt that there are no mistakes in the order. Various contentions were raised which were not accepted by AO, therefore, the matter was again preferred before the CIT (A). Before the CIT (A) the main contention was that AO has not followed the Board instructions in selection of scrutiny and so the jurisdiction to issue notice itself is bad in law. Further on various claims assessee has detailed submissions before the CIT (A). In the meantime, assessee also filed various criminal complaints against AO, Jt. Commissioner and the CIT (A) who passed the orders in the first round of assessment. The grounds raised before the CIT (A) were considered in detail by the CIT(A). While not accepting the issues on jurisdiction, he considered the issues on merits and gave partial relief by deleting the additions mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 ITR 239 (MP) Arihant Builder v. ITAT 15 99-103 22 Xerox copy of Instruction no. 1851 dated 8-8- 1990- Guide line in respect of limited 16 104-105 23 Xerox copy of [2001] 115 TAXMAN 575 (MP) C.I. T. v. Ladharam Lakhimal (Prior Approval) 17 106-108 24 Xerox copy of Deepchand Kothari v.c. I. T. (Jurisdiction) 18 109-111 25 Xerox copy of (2007) 295 ITR 256 (Del) C. I. T. v. Best Plastic (P) Ltd (Circulars are binding on officers of I. T.) 19 112 26 Xerox copy of CIT v. Best Plastic Ltd. (295 ITR 256) (Circulars are binding on officers of I. T.) 20 113-113A 27 Xerox copy of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji (1972) 4 SCC 394 (Validity of notice 21 114-114A 28 Xerox copy ofUco Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (Circulars are binding on officers of I.T. 22 115-128 29 Xerox copy of Uco Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) (Instruction & Circulars are binding on officers of I. T.) 23 129-136 30 Xerox copy of CIT v. IOCL Ltd. (2004) 267 ITR 272 (SC) (Circulars are binding on officers of I. T) 24 137-150 31 Xerox copy of Tanna & Modi v. CIT Mumbai XXV and Ors on 17 May, 2007 (Fraud) 25 151-156 32 Xerox copy of 2002 AIR SCW 4939 (Interpretation of St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....23 24.06.08 In W.P. No.3624/2008 Hon'ble Bombay High Court gave liberty to challenge notice dated 21.10.02 under section 143(2) 24 13.05.09 Office Supdt. Letter shows that the approval records were fabricated 25 11.06.09 ACIT letter shows that neither my name nor AY 2000-2001 contain in correspondences for approval 26 8.10.09 Police filed interim report in learned 24th A.C.M.M. Court stating ACIT - A.K. Gowada, JCIT A.B. Joshi and CIT (A) Pomela Prasad Committed offences under various sections of IPC. 27 8.8.11 Accused A.K. Gowada filed criminal application to squash criminal proceedings in learned A.C.M.M. Court. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the application and ordered learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. 28 2.4.13 Departmental Representative Shri Mohit Jain shown office copy of notice under section 143(2) dated 21.10.2002 also have insertion of date as "23". This proves the intention to show that the notice was issued after approval but in fact insertion of date fall under criminal conspiracy The date is changed after thought and part of criminal conspiracy. Proceedings before the ITAT 7. The proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Sr. D.R. is trying to drag the hearing. The Sr. D.R., Mr. P.C. Mourya, submitted that for hearing on 14th November 2011, be requested for adjournment well in advance on 25th October 2011, as he had to proceed on leave. He further submitted that going on leave which has been sanctioned to him, cannot be considered obstruction of administration of justice. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the learned Departmental Representative has applied for adjournment well in advance, as leave has been sanctioned to him. The Vice President, Mumbai Zone, directed that the case be fixed for hearing on 29th November 2011, in view of the request. In other words, the request for adjournment was granted and the case was posted within 15 days. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition dated 14th November 2011, filed by Mr. M.K. Patel. In the result, petition dated 14th November 2011, filed by Mr. M.H. Patal, is dismissed. The Registry is directed to issue copy of this order sheet to both the parties. Appeals and the cross objection are adjourned to 9th April 2012. This date of hearing is announced in the open Court in the presence of both the parties. Sd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T vide letter dated 21-10-2002 sought approval of additional list of cases proposed to be scrutinized from JCIT. This list contains 101names of assessees. This list neither contains my name nor A. Y. 2000-01. 2] Please refer to page 9 to 12. The JCIT vide letter dated 23-10-2002 approved additional list of cases as proposed by ACIT. It is surprisingly noted by applicant that this list contains 51 names of assessee whereas the letter clearly state that the list proposed by ACIT is approved. No reason/s was/were given by JCIT. This list neither contains my name nor A. Y. 2000- 01. From this inferences can be drawn that the ACIT Mr. A. K. Gowada and Mr. A. B. Joshi as a part of criminal conspiracy and as a part of corrupt extortion practice extorted money from 50 assessee and dropped their name at the cost of revenue. 3] Please refer to page no. 13 and 14. This is a letter issued by office Superintendent of Additional CIT. In column 2, 3 and 6 he stated that no inward/outward register are maintained. In column 7 he enclosed copy of pages of inward register which has no entry of letter dated 23-10-2002. It also states that the approval letter was directly served to ACIT. This clearly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ACIT 24 (2) has not filed this appeal under the direction of CIT Range 24 as required U/s 253 (2) of Income Tax Act 1961. The entire record in this connection be called for looking into criminal back grounds of I.T. Officers being mastermind in fabricating the records. The appeal is filed without jurisdiction. The appeal be dismissed with cost being not maintainable. In this connection I rely on 2002 AIR SCW 4939. 2] The CIT (Appeals) XXIV passed appellate order on 18- 09-2006 and it appears that the appeal is filed on 30-11- 2006. The actual date of filing the appeal be verified as it may be filed even on latter date. It also appears that no application for condonation of delay is filed. The appeal is bar by the law of limitation of thirty days U/s 253 (3) hence the same be dismissed at cost. In light of above argument I am not interested to go into the merit of case and humbly pray to deliver verdict on above issue and further prays as under:- Prayers A] The notice dated 21-10-2002 be squash and set aside being a product of crime. B] The notice dated 21-10-2002 be squash and set aside being issued without prior approval. C] The appeal no. 6359/M/06 be dismissed being not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The notice u/s.143(2) dated 21-10-2002 issued by AC.I. T.24(2) is annexed and marked as Exhibit 3. The notice u/s.142(1) dated 7-7-2005 (which has hand written remarks which shows that he was pre-determined) issued by AC.I. T.24(2) to me, without serving notice u/s.142(1). The notice u/s.142(1) dated 7-7-2005) is annexed and marked as Exhibit 4. Both the notices were mere notices which do not contains any details of accounts and or particulars to be produced as required u/s.143(2)(i) and 143(2)(ii), which are obligatory on the part of AO., under law, thus said notice is a mechanical exercise of power by A. 0., which is illegal, bad in law, void and beyond jurisdiction. No other notice/notices were served to me within twelve months as provided u/s.143(2)(ii), thus the return furnished by me become final and binding on I. T. Authority. In this context I will rely on following judgments i) Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO & others ITR (1978) 779 ii) Berium Chemicals v. AJ. Rana, AIR 1972 SC 591; (1972) 42 iii) C.M. Jaffer Khan V. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 199 (Mys) affirmed in CIT V. C.M. Jaffer Khan (1972) 4 SCC 298; (1972) 83 ITR 339 (SC). iv) Mohini Debi Malpani v. ITO (1970) Vol. 77 (Cal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l not be vitiated even if no notice under section 142(1) is issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, there is no requirement of law that the notice u/s.143(2) should be issued only after the prior approval of the Jt.CIT. Sometimes, such approvals are obtained only for administrative reasons. The CBOT Instruction dated 28/06/2002 relied upon by the appellant is applicable to limited scrutiny u/s.143(2)(i). This Instruction is not applicable to the case of the appellant as it was not a case of limited scrutiny. Moreover, it is seen from the order sheet of the assessment record that the notice u/s.143(2) was issued in this case with the approval of the Jt.CIT, Range-24(2), communicated vide his letter No.Jt.CIT/Range- 24(2)1 Scrutiny/2002-03 dated 23/10/2002.Considering all these facts and provisions of law, it is found that the proceeding for scrutiny assessment was initiated as per law and was valid. The grounds taken in this regard are dismissed". ( emphasis supplied) 15. Even though, the learned CIT (A) decided the issue in relation to contention that a notice u/s 142(1) was not issued along with notice u/s 143(2), the fact that the notice was issued on 21.10....