2022 (10) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....even by affixture and the notice u/s 148 sent through speed post never served upon assessee. In absence of service, notice issued u/s 148 deserves to be quashed. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act and assessment based on the basis of such notice ignoring the fact that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO. Without application of mind, without any tangible material or valid reasons, simply on the basis of his fallacious assumptions, conjunctures and surmises. The proceedings so initiated were illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 3. The Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in making the, addition of Rs. 670,000/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee's paper book and submitted that the factum of withdrawal of Rs.50 lakh and deposit of the impugned amount on three occasions is clearly discernible from the copy of the bank statement of his mother to which the assessee is merely a joint account holder. Therefore, the impugned additions may kindly be deleted. 4. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was right in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,000/- in the hands of the assessee allowing part relief to the assessee. 5. Placing rejoinder to the above, the ld. Counsel submitted copy of the assessment order for AY 2011-12 pertaining to the assessee's mother Smt. Kamlesh u/s 143(3)/147 of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat these transactions have been undertaken by the mother of the assessee, Smt. Kamlesh and not by the assessee. 7. In view of the above noted factual position, the whole controversy revolves around a single question whether the impugned cash deposits to the joint bank account of the assessee and her mother belonged to the assessee. The department alleges that the impugned deposits have been made by the assessee, whereas the assessee has successfully demonstrated that these deposits have been made by her mother out of cash withdrawals made by her on 15.01.2009, much earlier than the dates of impugned deposits. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that only because the assessee now has been mentioned as joint account holder of the ba....