TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under section 69A of the Act. 1.1 That in doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the basic fact that the cash deposited in bank account amounting to Rs. 16,58,000/- was duly explained to the Ld. CIT(A), which explanation has been arbitrarily rejected and that too on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures and hence the addition so sustained is unsustainable and liable to be deleted. 1.2 That the adverse findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the impugned addition has been recorded with preconceived notions and by arbitrarily brushing aside the detailed submissions / evidences / material placed on record, which were furnished in order to support the fact that no disallowance was called for in the instant case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additional ground alongwith the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, I am of the considered view that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 (Supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee vide its Application dated 6.9.2016 is purely legal ground and did not require fresh facts which is to be investigated and goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice, I admit the aforesaid additional ground raised by the assessee, in view of the case law of NTPC Limited (Supra) and proceed to decide the additional ground first. 6. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return on 23.2.2007 at a total income of Rs. 1,01,850/-. The case of the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind considerable cogency in the assessee's counsel submissions that the assessment order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the assessing officer is without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio and is liable to be quashed, as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on assessee. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated are illegal, unsustainable and untenable under the law. Hence, the assessment so framed by the AO is totally illegal and needs to be quashed. My view is fully supported by the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble High Courts, Coordinate Benches of the ITAT decisions:- ACIT & Anr. vs. Hotel Blue Moon: [(2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC)] HELD: "It is mandatory for the AO to issue notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued within the period of limitation fixed under the law, then such notice shall be deemed to have been issued within time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act." CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. "In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled." M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148." JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. - 2008-09 "Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal." RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO - (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) Limitation for re-assessment- Service of notice u/s143(2) in time - A.Y.1995-96. "It was presumed by legal fiction that a return filed uls 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 would be treated as a return filed u/s 139 of the Act. The assessee had filed its return in response to a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The service of notice u/s143(2) of the Act within 12 months of filin....