2025 (5) TMI 884

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CIT-15, New Delhi u/s 263 of the IT Act is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case and thus the assessment framed on the basis of invalid proceedings is also bad in law. 2. That assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by Principal CIT for cash deposit in bank account is bad in law as no addition for deposit of cash of Rs. 9,49,500/- in AXIS Bank and Corporation Bank account and Rs. 1477/- on account of interest can be made when the primary ground, on the basis of which reassessment proceeding u/s 147 were initiated, cease to exist as held in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT', 336 ITR 136 (Del), therefore the order passed by CIT is un-jurisdictional. 3. That, the Ld. Pr. Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er is clearly established from perusal of the record, without pin-pointing as to what sort of enquiry should have been made by him. 7. That the order u/s 144//263 passed by the Id. AO on 23.03.2022 consequent to order u/s 263 is invalid as the same is passed without generating any DIN which is against the CBDT Cir. No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, which requires that no communication by Income tax Authority shall be issued after 01.10.2019 to the assessee unless a computer generated DIN has been generated and is duly quoted in the body of the order, whereas no such DIN is given in the assessment order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dismissed. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee canvassing on Ground No. 2 & 3 vehemently submitted that the Ld. PCIT has reopened the case merely because no action for Assessment Year 2011-12 could be initiated u/s 148 of the Act in view of the fact that Assessment Year 2011-12 is already barred by limitation on 31/03/2018 itself. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the A.O. has made proper enquiry as per MNS data available for the year and there is no lack of enquiry on the part of the A.O., therefore, invocation of provision of Section 263 of the Act is erroneous. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the PCIT on account of cash deposit in the bank account is bad in law as no addition for....