TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- without proper and reasonable evidence. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. 3. Facts leading to the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer (AO) has served a notice u/s. 148 Income Tax Act [Act] by affixture and completed proceedings of assessment, wherein an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- has been brought to tax stating as under: "Unexplained Investment: As per the information, stated above, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased 2 plots admeasuring 300 and 301 sq.yards and paid Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- by cash and Rs. 90,000/- by cheque) and Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rs. 1,20,000/- by cash and Rs. 90,000/- by cheque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice as well as addition on merits stating as under: "The appellant has been filing regularly his returns of income. The address mentioned in the various assessment years are furnished below: Asst. Year Date of filing of the Return of income Address mentioned therein 2005-06 21-12-2005 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2006-07 30-11-2006 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2007-08 27-03-2008 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2008-09 14-08-2008 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2009-10 24-09-2009 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2010-11 08-02-2011 8-2-686/8/2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills 2011-12 11-01-2012 Plot No.48, Kavuri Hills, I-Phase, Jubile....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice u/s 148 is, therefore, not a valid one and the consequent assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 is also not a valid assessment, even though the appellant cooperated in completion of the assessment after receiving the notice u/s 142(1) dated 6-09-2012. 4.2 In this connection, kind attention of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) is invited to the above following decisions of various judicial authorities. i. ITAT Delhi in the case of Chandra Agencies Vs.ITO - 89 ITD 1 ii. Commissioner of income-tax Vs. Naveen Chander (323 ITR 49) (copy of the above order is enclosed) 4.3 It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) be pleased to cancel the assessment, in the above circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,000 @ 440 per sq. yard 6973 dt.27-8-2004 527 300 sq.yds 90,000 1,32,000 @ 440 per sq. yard 5.4 Kind attention of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Incometax(Appeals) is invited to the third para at page 3 of the Sale Deed, which is reproduced below for convenience: (All the sale deeds contain the same matter, mentioned above, except the quantum of consideration.) "THAT IN PURSUANCE of the aforesaid offer and acceptance the Vendee has already paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees Ninty thousand only) received through M/s Janmabhoomi Estates, and thus the Vendor hereby admits and acknowledges the receipt of the entire sale amount having received from the Vendee.............. " 5.5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Book. The address on which the notice was affixed was not the address of assessee, neither in the past nor later. As seen from the written submissions and the copies placed on record of returns filed, the address of assessee was 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The same address was also stated in the sale deeds placed on record. From where the AO got the address of 195/A, Road No. 13, White House, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad was not known. How it was the last known address was not answered by the Ld.CIT(A), who examined the record as stated in para 8.2, while confirming on merits. Since the procedure followed for affixture of notice is not proper, following the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Cha....