TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Form No.35 itself, which ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(A), NFAC while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the appellate order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC being passed on an ex-parte basis, needs to be quashed as being erroneous, illegal and bad-in-law. 2. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground of appeal, the appellant even otherwise raises the following independent grounds of appeal. (i) On facts and circumstances of the assessee and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in upholding the erroneous act of the IDTO of re-opening the case of the appellant for the year under consideration by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, which is absolutely illegal and bad-in law, requiring outright annulment. (ii) That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 23,63,650/- as made by the ITO in respect of the cash deposits made in the regular bank account of the appellant, by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69, which is absolutely erroneous and bad-in-law and needs to be deleted. (iii) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income from partnership firm in Jay Maa Khodiyar Enterprises, where he has received interest and salary of Rs. 56,201/- and assessee's business income of Rs. 1,50,361/- but nature of business is not disclosed. All the withdrawal by assessee through ATM, though credit entry in the bank is through cash only. The Assessing Officer extracted the relevant portion of bank statement in the assessment order on page-4 and made addition of entire cash deposits of Rs. 23,63,650/-. The Assessing Officer also noted that there are other credits of Rs. 4,26,470/- in ICICI bank account. The assessing officer was also added Rs. 4,26,470/- to the total income of assessee. The Assessing Officer further found that assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 923/- and Rs. 604/- totalling to Rs. 1,527/-, which was not disclosed by assessee. Thus, Assessing Officer also added such interest income to the total income of assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the addition and action of re-opening, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee migrated before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee are recorded in para-4 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has disclosed his bank income in his return of income filed in the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2012. Thus, the re-opening is not valid. And subsequent action initiated on invalid re-opening is void-ab-initio. 7. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunrise Education Trust vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption) [2018] 90 taxmann.com 74 (Guj). ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 043-SC, Mumtaz Hazi Mohd Memon Vs ITO in SCA No. 21030 of 2017 Guj, Amar Jewells Ltd Vs DCIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 4 Guj, Bir Bahadur Singh Chauhan Vs ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 Delhi and Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO in ITA No. 137 & 138/Agra/2018. 8. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that even the assessee she has a good case on merit that re-opening is not valid. On the merit of additions, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that entire credits in the bank account of assessee by way of cash or other credit cannot be added to the income of assessee as there are credit as well as withdrawal in the bank statement. Thus, only reasonable profit on such transactions being a part of turnover can be added. The ld AR for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee failed to disclose the source of deposit and credit as well as offered the interest income by filing return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 in time and further during assessment failed to substantiate about the nature and source of credit. Therefore, all the additions made by Assessing Officer and subsequently confirmed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) are justified and may be upheld. 10. In short rejoinder, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that no proceeding was pending before Assessing Officer at the time of issuing notice under section 133(6), therefore, the assessee was not under legal obligation to respond such notice, though assessee has already filed his return of income and again filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 19.11.2019. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Co-ordinate Bench of Agra Tribunal in the case of Sapna Chauhan Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.137-138/AG/2018 dated 22.03.2019, while considering the objection of Department that similar objection was not raised before the Assessing Officer and which cannot be taken at the appellate stage, held that question of jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence the pr....