AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. Total income of Rs. 214800/- was offered in the valid return of income filed on 21.09.2019 in compliance with notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act",) 6. Assessee-appellant claims to be in the business of running a beauty parlour, namely, Sophiya Beauty Parlour. On 29.03.2018, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee and her husband Sh. Deepak Samtani, in addition to the business premises of the husband. 7. Search and seizure action was also carried out at the residential and business premises of the family members of Sh. Deepak Samtani. The search led to incriminating material including documents/loose papers/books of accounts. The incriminating material was entered into inventories and seized. 8. In the course of search at her residence at 29, Sindhu Nagar, Bhilwara and business premises of her husband Shri Deepak Samtani, seized loose papers as Annexure AS-2, Page No. 15 to 20 and AS Exhibit- 6, Page No. 3 to 6 & Page No. 11 to 14 were seized. In reply to the notice, it was submitted by the assessee that the documents Exhibit AS-6, Page No. 11 to 14 were l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved that during the search of the house of the assessee and business premises of her husband, one of the documents seized was purchase deed dated 27.03.2016, vide which a plot, situated in village Suwana, was found to have been purchased by the assessee for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,51,000/-. The Assessing Officer observed that office of the Sub Registrar took into consideration DLC value of the plot as Rs. 12,00,000/-; that stamp duty of Rs. 48,000/- was reportedly paid for registration of the said document; and in addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 21,600/- was reportedly spent by way of other expenses for said registration. Assessing Officer went on to observe that even though the entire sale consideration is stated to have been paid in cash to the vendors namely, Sh. Atul Kumar Surana and Smt. Kanta Devi Sadhwani. the assessee did not disclose any such thing in the ITR or even in her reply to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, she did not disclose about the source for payment of the said consideration and other expenses including stamp duty. 13. As per assessment order, Ledger Account of M/s Mohan Broker Agency and M/s Hari Om Agency, said to have been seized during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s concerned about the source as regards a sum of Rs. 54,000/-credited by her in the account of her husband. The previous cash entry of Rs. 30,000/-in the account of the appellant was of 15.7.2015 and not soon before the subject transaction. Bank statement of the assessee for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016, page 29 of the Paper Book does not reveal any entry of cash deposite of Rs. 24,000/-in the said account of appellant after the abovesaid cash entry of 15.7.2015 in her account. Having regard to all this, said addition of Rs. 54,000/-deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly. 16. As regards the other addition of Rs. 12,20,600/-, ld. AR for the appellant has contended that the appellant purchased said plot situated in village Suwana with financial aid of Rs. 11,40,000/- availed of by her from her mother-in-law, Smt. Yashoda Devi, Prop. of M/s Hari Om Agency. In this regard, Learned AR for the appellant has referred to page No. 21 of the paper book, which is copy of pass book of Smt. Yodhoda Devi, as regards her Savings Bank Account with Dena Bank, Bhilwara, to point out that Smt. Yoshoda Devi had availed of housing loan facility of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 5,40,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount to the vendors. Contrary to it, the submission put forth by Learned AR for the appellant is that Smt. Yashoda Devi had withdrawn the abovesaid amount and paid the same in cash to the co-owners. This version was never put forth by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer or before Learned CIT(A). Thirdly, the assessee did not disclose said income in the Income tax return for the year under consideration. Same adversely affects the case of the assessee, particularly, when, admittedly, she has not been maintaining any books of accounts. In the given situation, self serving confirmation by Smt. Yashoda Devi, mother in law of the appellant, does not come to the help of the assessee-appellant. 19. Nowever, taking into consideration income of the assessee during the F.Y. 2016-17 i.e. of Rs. 3,66,224.00 - Rs. 54,000.00 paid to Mohan Broker Agency during said year, we restrict the addition to Rs. 9,08,376 (i.e. Rs. 12,20,600.00 - Rs. 3,12,224.00, source of which she failed to establish, despite reasonable opportunity, before the Assessing Officer and before Ld. CIT(A). Additional Grounds 20. First additional ground raised on behalf of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed before the Appellate Tribunal, it was for the assessee-appellant to prove to the satisfaction of this Tribunal if any prejudice has been caused to the assessee-appellant due to non mentioning of DIN number. Instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes are meant for compliance by the Income Tax Authorities. When the instructions were issued that such communications without DIN number shall be treated as 'non-est', and shall be deemed to have never been issued, can safely be said to have been issued to ensure and lay emphasis on their compliance by the Income tax authorities, without fail. It is not the allegation of the appellant that no assessment proceedings were conducted by the Assessing Officer or that the impugned assessment order is a made up or forged and fabricated document. In absence of any such plea or material to suggest that any prejudice was caused to the assessee-appellant, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee-appellant that because of non mentioning of DIN number. in the impugned assessment order, the same deserves to be set aside. Impugned assessment order not digitally signed-its impact 27. Another ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the written submissions to submit that all departmental orders/notices/communications issued to the assessee through 'e-proceedings' are to be digitally signed by the Assessing Officer. As already noticed above, instructions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes are meant for compliance by the Income Tax Authorities. Same can safely be said to have been issued to ensure compliance and lay emphasis on their compliance by the Income tax authorities, without fail. It is not the allegation of the appellant that no assessment proceedings were conducted by the Assessing Officer or that the impugned assessment order is a made up or forged and fabricated document. Ld. AR for the appellant has not been able to satisfy if any prejudice was caused to the assessee-appellant for want of digital signatures on the impugned assessment order. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Prior approval u/s 153D of the Act, whether the same was granted mechanically? 32. Ld. AR for the appellant has contended that the impugned assessment order is nullity, being without jurisdiction, in as much as no prior approval as mandated by section ....