2021 (3) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd to prove that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued within the period of limitation. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the affixture made on 12.07.2008, clearly established that the notice has not been issued within the period prescribed u/s. 148 of the Act and further 31.03.2018 was Saturday being a holiday to Department. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant has been provided reasonable opportunity and opportunity provided was not sufficient opportunity. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having held that the appellant has not maintained any books of account ought to have held section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer completed the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 148 of the I.T. Act vide order dated 28.11.2018, wherein the entire cash deposit in Kotak Mahindra Bank was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, it was submitted that the assessee was not provided with proper opportunity of hearing. It was further contended that no notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act was served on the assessee. On merits it was contended that cash withdrawals were available for re-deposit. It was stated that the assessee was carrying on the business of screen printing and other odd works, the receipt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... maintained any books of account and hence section 68 of the I.T. Act is inapplicable. On merits, it was stated that the A.O. has erred in not giving any credit/telescoping for the cash withdrawals made by him. It was further stated that the assessee was doing the business of screen printing and the receipts from the same was deposited in Kotak Mahindra Bank. 6. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that there was total lack of cooperation on the part of the assessee, because the assessee did not comply with any of notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the I.T. Act. Hence the A.O. was forced to complete the assessment u/s. 148 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act. It was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the assessee has not explained the so....