TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... !48r.w,s 148 of the Act and initiated the reassessment proceedings is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction; 2. That, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no notice U/s 148 of the Act and other statutory notice during the re- assessment proceedings was never properly served on the assessee and the same were sent on the wrong addresses, even after knowing the correct address of the appellant, hence the proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. That, CTT(A) has failed to appreciate that no proper and valid satisfaction/ reasons were recorded by the assessing officer before assumption the jurisdiction U/s 147 and issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act. 4. That, The CIT(A) erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That, CIT (A) has failed to appreciate in confirming the addition, that the assessee is an agriculturist and having no other source of income and The CASH was deposited out of the sale proceeds of the agriculture land as well as the sale proceeds of the agriculture proceeds, hence the addition made is highly arbitrary and unjust; 10. That, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provision of section 69A per se not applicable on the CASH deposit in the bank account of the assessee, hence the addition made U/s 69A is highly arbitrary and unjust. 11. The addition confirmed and the observations made by CIT (A) are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The addition made cannot be justified by any materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and specific charge was mentioned in assessment order as well as in notice issued U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hence the penalty imposed is bad in law and without jurisdiction 4. That, the assessing officer has erred in imposing the penalty of Rs.l 1,46,596.00. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same, which is illegal, bad in law and unjust. 5. That, CIT (A) has failed to appreciate before confirming the penalty, that the assessee is an agriculturist and having no other source of income and The CASH was Deposited out of the sale proceed of the agriculture land as well as the sale proceeds of the agriculture proceeds, hence the penalty imposed is highly arbitrary' and unjust. 6. That, CIT(A) failed to appreciate t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 16.05.2011. As per the assessment order the notice was returned back with the postal remark that the same was not accepted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act treating the cash transaction amounting to Rs. 36,90,000/- as unexplained deposit and treated the same as income under Section 69A and made addition accordingly. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. AR submitted that assessee is an Individual-agriculturist and the only source of income is agricultural income. The ld. AR further submitted that for the year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther submitted that the re-opening on the basis of the illegal, bad in law and defective verification notice makes the re-assessment proceedings illegal and void ab initio. The ld. AR further submitted that the re-assessment cannot be made to verify the cash deposited with the bank account by itself does not lead to income in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of any material, cannot be held as sufficient reason for re-opening assessment. The ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bir Bahadur Sijwali Vs. ITO (ITA 68 SOT 197) and Pramod Kumar Shai Vs. ITO (ITA 5758/Del/2013 dated 23.12.2019. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of cash deposit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the CIT (Appeals) do have taken cognizance of the provision produced before him, if given a partial relief despite the details given by the assessee for the entire amount of Rs. 36,90,000/-. From the perusal of the record presented before the CIT (A), it can be found that the explanation given by the assessee relating to sale of land for Rs. 36,90,000/- was duly reflected in his bank account. The CIT (A)'s stand that no explanation was offered relating to the remaining cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 26,20,000/- is not correct. The cash deposits were m....