TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO needs to be quashed as the order has been passed without issuing notice u/s. 143 (2) by the AO who was having jurisdiction over the appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the impugned order of assessment has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the AO prior to passing of the adverse order. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in treating the amount of cash deposits of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- in the Bank accounts as unexplained income u/s. 69A of the IT act ignoring the fact that the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents with regard to the source of the cash deposits in the bank account and the addition made by the AO are based on mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures which are unsustainable, arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in making the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y during the festival seasons. In the support of the contention he has filed a paper book containing pages no 1to 215 in which he attached copy of the notice u/s143(2) dated 21-09-2018, copy of the notice u/s 142(1), copy of reply dated 03-10-2019, copy of notice u/s 142(1), copy of reply dated 04- 11-2019, copies of notices u/s 142(1) of various date and copy of reply dated 17-12-2019. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments :- 1. PCIT 3, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. by Hon'ble High Court, ITA No. 68/2021 & CM No.9319/2021 2. CIT Vs. Smt. Charu Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com (Chandigarh - Trib.)/ (2022) 96 ITR (T) 66 (Chandigarh- Trib.) 3. CIT, New Delhi Vs. Kailash Jewellery House by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, ITA No.613/2010 4. DCIT Vs. Roop Fashion, 98 (ITR)(T) 419, passed by Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh. 5. The Ld DR has submitted that the jurisdiction of the AO has not challenged by the assessee. He has further submitted that the assessee has failed to explain the sources of cash deposit, so the addition made by AO be upheld. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Ld.AR has submitted that the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (b), which as predicated on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Where an assessee questions jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within the time limit and in terms of sub-section (3), and the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, he is required to refer the matter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. Reference of matter under subsection (2) would not be required when Assessing Officer accepts the claim of the assessee and transfers the case to another Assessing Officer in view the objection by the assessee. (In terms of sub-section (3) to Section 124 of the Act, the petitioner had "Tost his right to question jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(1), Noida, 20. Sub-section (5) to Section 124, though limited in scope, would also be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Noida had the power to assess income accruing or arising within the area as it is not the case of the petitioner-assessee that the said officer did not have jurisdiction in view of location of the bank account and/or petitioner's place of work. Section 124(5) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent case, there is no dispute that the reassessment notice was issued by the AO on 22.03.2010; upon its receipt, the assessee reiterated its earlier return on 21.04.2010. Since its response led to objections as to the jurisdiction, it lost the capacity to urge the ground by virtue of the provision under Section 124(3)(a). This condition has been obviously overlooked by the ITAT which proceeded to set aside the assessment and completed the reassessment proceedings. The impugned order is consequently set aside; the question of law urged by the Revenue is answered in its favour. The matter is remitted for consideration on the merits of the appeal concerning the additions made in the reassessment proceedings." 9. The assessee has not challenged the jurisdiction before the AO within time so this argument is not tenable. Ground decided accordingly. 10. We find that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of gold, silver and diamond jewelry since 2014. We observed that the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the HDFC bank account on 10.11.2016 and Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on 13.11.2016 was the cash sales made during the months of October & November and during the pe....