TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 148 of the Act. 2. The Learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 26,15,149/- as unexplained. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise." 3. No return was filed by the assessee u/s. 139 of the Act. The assessee's case was reopened after issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act after taking necessary approval of the competent authority. In compliance to the notice issued u/s. 148, the assessee filed return of income on 15-04-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 1,13,910/-. Notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 22-06-2018 and served upon the assessee. Copy of the reasons was also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court in case of PCIT vs. Prahalad Singh (ITA No. 91 of 2019 order dated 27.02.2020) and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Vikas Gupta vs. UOI (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (All.HC). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the reasons upon which the reopening was done are not valid as the same are not signed by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the reopening u/s 147 of the Act itself becomes bad in law. As regards the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered any documentary evidences filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that as per show cause notice dated 11.10.2018, the addition intended for deposit of cash was Rs. 14,90,857/- and not Rs. 28,84,211/- for which credits were available in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not requirement to show acceptance of loan or repayment of loan in return of income. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the balance amount of Rs. 16,40,149/- (Rs.26,15,149 - Rs. 9,75,000) is also not consonance with provisions of law and has to be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the reasons are digitally signed and therefore, the contentions of the assessee that the reasons are not signed, does not sustain. The Notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as the orders were also signed digitally. Thus, the Ld. AR's contention that notice issued u/s 148 is not valid and therefore, assessment order itself is bad in law, is not correct. The Ld. DR relied upon the findings of the CIT(A) as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer and the show cause notice dated 11.10.2018 was signed digitally by the same Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessment order is valid and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). 8.1. Now coming to the merits of the case, as per show cause notice dated 11.10.2018, the addition intended for deposit of cash was Rs. 14,90,857/- and not Rs. 28,84,211/- for which credits were available in the assessment order. At the same time during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon the details of cash deposits in the bank account and the sources of such deposits. Thus, the contention of the Ld. AR that Rs. 28,84,211/- was not mentioned in the show cause notice does not sustain, as the Asses....