TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2015 on the assessee's business premises and its brick field. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 46,79,520/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment by issue of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the A.O. passed an order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28/12/2017 determining the total income at Rs. 61,25,721/- inter alia making the following additions: (i) Under valuation of closing stock of Rs. 11,05,651/- and (ii) Disallowance of pathrea expenses of Rs. 3,40,550/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata, who passed an order dated 13.03.2019 in which the addition of Rs. 3,40,550/- on account o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a non-corporate assessee and resides in a mofussil area and as the income declared is more than Rs. 15,00,000/-. He submitted that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.09.2016 by ITO, Ward-24(2), Hooghly who was not the officer having jurisdiction over the assessee and this notice was duly served on the assessee. The file was then transferred to ACIT, Circle 24(1). He submitted that the ACIT, Circle-24(1), Hooghly completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, without giving any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Thus he submits that the assessment is bad in law. For this proposition, he relied on the following decision: i. 2020(11) TMI 310-ITAT Lucknow ITO-6(1), Kanpur vs. M/s. Arti Securities & Services Ltd. order dated 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate by the survey team physically on guess work. His case is that the cost as per books should be accepted, as the books have not been rejected. 9. The Ld. Departmental representative on the other hand submitted that, the PAN of the assessee was lying with ITO, Ward-24(2), Hooghly and hence this ITO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He submitted that the ACIT Circle-24(1), Hooghly also belongs to the same range as that of ITO, Ward-24(2), Hooghly and hence he need not give fresh notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He argues that the assessment order is valid in law. On merits, the ld. DR submitted that stock valuation was done by the survey team and that at the time of survey and the assessee had not denied the valuation done, with cogent m....