TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the assessee was having no knowledge about the impugned orders. He has further submitted that when the orders were received by the assessee, it was Covid-19 pandemic period and only after the lockdown and other restrictions were relaxed, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the limitation from 15.03.2020 to 20.06.2022, the appeals of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) were duly sent to the assessee through speed post therefore, the assessee cannot take the excuse of having no knowledge of the impugned orders. He has objected to the condonation of delay of an inordinate delay in filing these appeals. 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay as he was having no knowledge about the impugned orders dated 04.06.2019 till he obtained the certified copies of these orders on 20.03.2020. Though, the learned DR has submitted that the orders were sent to the assessee throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021. 4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....swer of the entire assessment order which has been made only on basis of an affidavit which have not contained in the Act and is, deserve be quashed as such. 2. That the learned Commissioner has not considered that appellant has not purchased any land for Rs 375000/- during financial year relevant to assessment year 2011-12 as such there was no question of investment of rs 375000/-during the year .and was submitted the reply on 22.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 before Assessing Officer and given their all ITR-S from the previous year and submitted his reply in written in which he has given detail of the investment of Godown purchased by him in past year 2008-09 by their previous saving, loan and profit gain but his submission was not considered, by the Assessing Officer and initiated the order u/s 147 without giving any information to appellant. 3. That learned commissioner has not seen the fact where appellant was denied the purchasing of godown and also admitted in their reply that Rs 375000.00 was never invested by him for purchasing of Godown, during this year but the assessing officer could not considered appellant submission and without applying with looking into records and ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased on fundamental misconception of facts and provision of law and hence untenable. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessment under passed by the A.O. is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that surmises, conjecture and suspicion could not be basis much less a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax also has failed to appreciate that under section 144/148 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set aside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order of assessment and as such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence unsustainable. That various other adverse finding recorded in the notice under section 144/148 of the Act and also in impugned order are factually incorrect, vague, legally misconceived and untenable. That while passing the order u/s 144/148 of the Act the learned Commissioner of Income Tax can not travel beyond the show cause notice and therefore findings and observation and also the material relied upon not referred in the show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee explained the source of investment by producing the relevant details. The assessee also produced the necessary documentary evidence in support of his submissions before the CIT(A) comprising of an agreement to sell dated 02.03.2007 and payment of earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of agreement to sell. Assessee also furnished a chart showing cash payment details to the vendor Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. The CIT(A) forwarded all these documents to the AO for remand report. Since, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee after the remand report of the AO therefore, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO. 8. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the source of investment by producing the income tax returns of the previous years, bank account statements and availability of the cash on account of past savings, unsecured loans and profit earned by the assessee during the past assessment years. The learned AR has also produced the copy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said agreement to sell, the assessee paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as part consideration for purchase of the property in question being Godown bearing Arazi No. 1086/2, Mauja Rajpura, Tehsil Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, measuring 2 Biswa and 13 Dhoor constructed two rooms at ground floor. Therefore, the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was not paid by the assessee during the year under consideration as it was paid at the time of agreement to sell registered on 02.03.2007. The AO has made the addition of entire payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- upto the date of sale deed. The assessee has produced the return of income of the preceding years as well as other record including the profit and loss account. Though the return of income were filed under section 44AD however, the availability of the cash was explained by the assessee in a chart showing the savings from the profits of the preceding years as well as the loan obtained by the assessee. These details were not considered and discussed either by the AO or by the CIT(A) in the impugned orders. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the AO has made the addition without even considering the fact that the payment of Rs. 1,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en to applicant to submit their reply regarding purchasing of Godown for Rs 375000/-. 5. That the appellant was filing ITR-S from the year of 2004-2005 till now and there is a provision in filling ITR-S where only necessary to show the gross receipt and its 8% net profit which the assessing officer used to the power under the Act personally in intension to create revenue which is bad in law. 6. The A.O had issued notice to assessee under section 148 of I.T.Act on the basis of enquiry report dated 09.02.2016 from the ADI (Inv.)Varanasi which subject was to explain about purchasing of land where order passed on the basis as per ADI report .the A.O treated it an investment whether it was the part of the fixed assets under the part of balance sheet however assessee filed their return under section 44AD in form 4S (Sugam) where under this section 44AD the assessee is also given in written the computation details of form 4S where he declare total receipt and 8% of their net profit in his reply. as per section 44AD and in this clauses of tax form 4S, he was not liable to show his investment which is part of balance sheet and was not applicable in form 4S, regarding land which is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to make deeper enquiry in other words. allegation of proper enquiry or independence enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 144/148 of the Act. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting opportunity to explain to appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and vitiated order." 12. On the basis of the same enquiry report, the AO reopened the assessment vide notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2015. The AO made addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- towards unexplained investment in purchase of land. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the assessee has not purchased any land for the year under consideration from (Late) Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. Thus, the assessee has denied any such transaction or alleged investment in purchase of land. The CIT(A) called for a remand report. In the remand report, the AO reiterated addition as made in the assessment order. 13. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that there is no record of purchasing of the alleged land for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- from Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal. The learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well as Sh Abdullah Khan to take action u/s 147 for A/Y 2008-2009 and Sh Charanjit Singh for A/Y 2011-12 also. 8. The copy of the report of the ITO(Inv) is hereby enclosed with the annexure. 9. Since the case involves Limitation by 31.03.2015, the report is being sent to the AO under intimation to the Range Head and the CIT, Varanasi' 10. This may be treated as final report and pendency of the reference may be deleted accordingly. Encl: As above Sd/- (Lalit Kishore) Asstt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-I, Varanasi." 16. From this report, it is clear that two transactions of Sh. Chanranjit Singh Sehgal were under the enquiry of the investigation wing. One transaction was sale of Godown and another was residential plot. The Godown was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-, which was the subject matter for the assessment year 2008-09. However, there is nothing in the enquiry report to suggest that the second transaction of sale of land by Late Sh. Charanjit Singh Sehgal was with the assessee. Even in the said report, only one transaction being the purchase of Godown by the assessee for Rs. 13,00,000/- was reported and the AO....