2022 (3) TMI 884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess. 2) That on facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT A has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-, made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of The Act. 3) That without prejudice to the above contentions, on facts of the case and in law, the assessment made is illegal since: a) Mandatory notice/assessment should be issued/made by his jurisdiction officer, i.e. Ward 5(1)(2) but in hurry, it is issued byWard-1(2), Noida. b) As the jurisdiction over the assessee was different, he not reply the notice. c) As the assessee income was below taxable limit for the said Assessment year, he had not file the return. The amount which was added by AO is advance received against sell of plot. d) The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax and interest of Rs. 7,18,301/- was found to be payable by the appellant by the Ld. A.O. on the date of framing of the impugned assessment order. This amount of income of the appellant is well within the provisions of Section 208 read with Section 209 and 210 as the tax payable by the appellant is far in excess of the limit of Rs. 10,000/- beyond which a tax payer is bound to pay advance tax in terms of the provisions of Section 208, 209 and 210 of I.T.Act, 1961 and therefore, for the appeal of the appellant to be admissible before this office the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to the advance tax which was payable by the appellant on an income of Rs. 15,00,000/- and as admittedly, the provision of Section 249(4)(b) of the I....