2023 (4) TMI 956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee as unexplained investments under Section 69 of the Act, besides initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The order of assessment is questioned primarily on the ground that the order of assessment was on the face of it illegal and erroneous inasmuch as it had recorded factually incorrect and perverse findings in regard to the following (i) that the assessee had neither filed any return of income nor offered any income for taxation in respect of the transaction regarding purchase of immovable property valued at Rs. 4,23,61,800/-. (ii) that the assessee had not replied to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 11th October, 2021 and 13th March, 2022 as also the show cause notice dated 19th March....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 142(1) of the Act yet again on 08th March, 2022, requiring the Petitioner to furnish the same information and documents which had been sought for by the earlier A.O. and furnished in entirety. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that no response was filed to the notices subsequently issued on 08th March, 2022 or the notice issued thereafter on 13th March, 2022. It was further stated that a show cause notice dated 19th March, 2022 was issued requiring the Petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,23,61,800/- be not treated as unexplained investment and added to the total income of the Petitioner to which no response was filed by the Petitioner. This was followed by a draft order dated 27th March, 2022 passed under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the revenue has not been successful in satisfying us as to whether the information which was required to be furnished pursuant to the notices issued by the A.O. of Ward 3(3) (1), Mumbai, dealing with the international taxation was not already on record and if it was then the same ought to have been considered. An inadvertent error committed by the Petitioner in reflecting that the return of income had been filed under the category 'u/s 119(2)(b)' instead of selecting the option 'u/s 148' could have been treated to be a return validly filed by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act especially when the Petitioner claims that the mistake was brought to the notice of the concerned A.O. at the appropriate stage. 7. Ha....