AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he tune of Rs. 1389863/- made u/s 28 by the learned AO on account of net profit @ 8% on entire deposits amounting to Rs. 17373286/- in bank account. 2. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the assessment framed u/s 144/147 is bad in law since the same is without mentioning DIN which is a mandatory requirement as per Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14th August 2019. 3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the AO has erred in framing the assessment u/s 144/147 merely on the basis of AIR information. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the AIR information was in respect of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2236250/- while the AO has made addition to the tune of Rs. 1389863/- by applying net profit rate of 8% on entire deposits of Rs. 17373286/-. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1389863/- u/s 28 without appreciating that the assessee was running a small business of Cement and Saria and without providing the bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22,36,520/- during the FY 2012-13 (relating to the assessment year under appeal) the AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act 61, dated 07/09/2018, after obtaining necessary approval from the PCIT, J & K, Jammu. 7. The return filed by the assessee u/s 148 of the Act 61, disclosing an income of Rs. Five lakhs, on a declared turnover of Rs. 61,47,541/-, has been assessed at Rs. 13,89,863/- calculated at the rate of 8% of total bank credits of Rs. 1,73,73,286/-, for the year. 8. The first appellate authority, after considering the statement of facts and grounds of appeal and submissions on record, has sustained the order of the AO on the ground that the source of the credit entries appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee has not been satisfactorily explained, and as such the total of such credits in bank account are treated as gross turnover of the assessee, and the profits derived @ 8% of the said gross figure are confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the MOA, and in this appellate proceedings before the tribunal, the assessee has filed a short paper book consisting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 600 (Calcutta) High Court of Calcutta Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kolkata Vs. M/s Tata Medical Centre Trust, Kolkata. d) [2023] 153 taxmann.com 211 (Pune - Trib.) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'B' Prabhakar Amruta Shillak v. Income-tax Officer. e) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 442 (Bangalore - Trib.) IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A' Dilip Kothari v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) f) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 287 (Kolkata - Trib.) In the ITAT Kolkata Bench Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Tata Medical Centre Trust." 15. However, in the instant case it is seen that DIN has been generated on the same date 25/11/2019, by the AO concerned, as a common DIN for assessment order, for the demand notice and also for the computation of income. 16. Now the question that arises is whether, the common DIN generated for the order, DN and computation, issued to the assessee, can be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the mandate of the CBDT circular - 19 / dated 14/08/2019 or not, is very much pertinent in this case. 17. On this issue the Ld. AR has referred to the decision of coordinate benches of the Tribunal to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra), Bangalore Benches in case of Dilip Kothari (supra), Hyderabad Benches in case of Sidda Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao, Indore Benches in case of Shri Ishak Kasturbagram (ITA No. 13/Ind/2023 dated 24/08/2023), Nagpur Benches in case of Gupta Domestic Fuels and others (ITA no. 61/Nag/2022 and others dated 31/10/2023) that the communication issued by the Income tax authorities by way of notices and assessment orders which are not in compliance with the aforesaid CBDT Circular no 19/2019 are non-est in eyes of law. As we have seen and discussed above, some of these matters have reached the respective Hon'ble High Courts and the findings of the Tribunal have been upheld in case of Brandix Mauritius Holding Ltd. and Tata Medical Centre Trust. On this account as well, we respectfully follow the collective wisdom as expounded in various decisions rendered by the Coordinate Benches across the Country and do not see any justifiable basis to deviate from the same. 51. In light of the aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed u/s 147 r/w 143(3) cannot be upheld and deserve to be set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch could not be rectified by invoking the provisions of section 292B of the Act 61 . 22.1 Moreover, even if we consider the common DIN generated on 25/11/2019, even then also we find, that in case of the demand notice issued u/s 156 of the Act 61, the same is dated 26th November, 2019, which means that on the date of generation of the common DIN, there was no demand notice u/s 156 in legal existence. 22.2 Moreover, there are identical judgments of various benches on this issue, that the basic requirement is the quoting of the DIN number on the body of the assessment order and on the demand notice. Subsequent generation of DIN either on the same day or next day and intimated to the assessee by way of separate communication does not satisfy the conditions of para 3 and 4 of the said circular. (a) Harjeet Singh v ACIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com270 Delhi ITAT Where the assessing officers order showed no DIN number, nor there was any reason of non mentioning DIN number, AO order would be invalid and shall be deemed to have never been passed, subsequent separate communication of DIN would be superfluous exercise. (b) Abhimanyu Chaturvedi v DCIT (2024) 159 tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence justifying the cash deposit . 27. Thereafter, the Ld. AR referred to (page 4 and 5 of the paper book) the approval granted by the higher authority, being the Ld. PCIT, J & K, Jammu, dated 26th July, 2018, where in row - 6 of the said approval sheet, it is stated as follows: 6) Quantum of Income which has escaped assessment Rs. 22,36,520/- Referring to the above documents the AR argued that in the instant case the approval granting authority, while granting approval u/s 151 of the Act 61, has not applied his mind to the facts of the case, because the quantum of income which had escaped assessment as mentioned in approval and the quantum as stated in the recorded reasons are at variance with each other, which proves that the Ld PCIT has simply granted a mechanical approval and has not applied his mind to facts on record, because the satisfaction recorded does not reflect application of mind and there has been no objective satisfaction in this case. 28. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Teleperformance Global Service (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2024) 161 taxmann.com 258 ( Bombay ) dated 19/03/2024, to state that i....