AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision". The Learned Commissioner has erred in not stating the points to be determined, nor decided on the points raised in the appeal, and not giving any reasons for his decision except quoting from judgements which are old and not relevant to the points/issues which were to be determined, and which issues/points therefore remain undetermined and or undecided and no definitive reasons given for not determining the points/issues, and or for not taking any definitive decisions on the same. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the learned AO who passed the order dated 14-03-2014 did not give an opportunity to the assessee to inspect the file to know the basis of the issue of the notice u/s 148, as no basis was mentioned in the notice that was issued. 4. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the learned AO who issued the notice u/s 148 did not give the reasons for the issue of the notice under S 148, or that the reasons had not been mentioned in that notice, and or that the assessee had protested that he had filed the return (and submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proval for the issue of the same. 9. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the learned AO who passed the order dated 14-03-2014 had not given inspection of the file whereby the assessee could have learned the proper basis for issue of the notice under Section 148, and take further action on the matter, namely to challenge the same. 10. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the learned AO who passed the order dated 14-03-2014, (instead of giving every assistance to the assessee to verify the validity of the notice u/s 148, and if necessary to challenge the same), chose to deny an opportunity to the assessee to have a look into this precondition before going into the matter of reassessment. 11. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the learned AO who passed the order dated 14-03-2014 did not go into the fact whether the notice u/s 148 was issued on the basis of belief (based on verification and belief based on verification) of the AO who issued the notice, and whether the same was recorded in the file by the -same officer before issue of the notice under section 148. 12. The Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s laid down to protect the assessee). 21. The learned commissioner erred in considering and dealing with only part of ground 1 but did not consider nor comment on the fact of how the learned AO could have jurisdiction on the date of the order when the matter had been fixed for hearing for a later date. 22. The Learned Commissioner erred in not considering and not commenting on the fact that the order of the Learned AO on 14.03.2014 (prior to the next date of hearing) had no legal validity. 23. The Learned Commissioner erred in not considering the fact that the demand on the basis of the order of the learned AO can only be NDN EST/void/nullity. 24. The Learned Commissioner erred in not declaring the order of the AO as not enforceable. 25. The Learned Commissioner erred in not cancelling the order of the Learned AO. 26. The Learned Commissioner erred in not considering the Letters exchanged between the assessee and the Commissioner X (appeals) (copies of the letters enclosed herewith). 27. The Learned Commissioner erred in not considering the letters exchanged between the assessee and himself (copies of the letter enclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct') was issued on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that the assessee had received an accommodation entry amounting to Rs.5,16,423/-. The person from whom the cheque was received admitted that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries to various persons including the assessee. The entry operator after receipt of cash from the assessee issued a cheque and on this basis, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The AO completed assessment proceedings u/s 147/144 of the Act, treating the amount of Rs.5,16,423/- as undisclosed income of the assessee since no compliance was made despite affording many opportunities. Against the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal for non attendance/non prosecution with the remarks that the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision, the assessee filed further appeal before ITAT. The ITAT, Bench-E, New Delhi vide order ITA No. 2454/De1l2011 dated 04.04.2012 set aside the assessment order and restored back the matter to the Assessing Officer on the assessee&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Patnaik (1991) 188 ITR 247, the Apex Court has sounded the note of caution that at the stage of notice under section 147/148 of the Act, the Court is not to go into the merits of the controversy whether a particular income is taxable. Taking, the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case into consideration, I uphold the reopening of assessment u/s 148. Accordingly, the ground no.1 is rejected." 5. As regards the unexplained cash credit, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the same also that nothing was produced in the second round. Ld. CIT (A) also placed reliance on several case laws. Operative part of the ld. CIT(A) order is as under :- "5.4 I have carefully considered the findings recorded by the ld. AO as per the impugned order, the position of law and the facts of the case on record and the letters sent on behalf of the appellant. As can be seen from the records, the appellant neither appeared before the Id. AO during the assessment proceedings to explain the cash credit of Rs.5,16,423/- nor filed any explanation on the same during the appellate proceedings. Same was the case when the original assessment was done by the ld. AO after issuing a notice u/s 148. Though th....