TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....") relevant to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The facts of the case are that for both the years, the assessee had initially filed return of income which was subjected to scrutiny assessment and order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was re-opened for both the years, notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and order passed u/s. 147 of the Act making addition to the income of the assessee on identical issue, holding two transactions of sale of shares undertaken by the assessee to be bogus. The one resulting in loss, which was claimed as a set off against short term capital gain earned by the assessee, was disallowed, while the transaction resulting in short term capital gain was treated as unexpla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action of AO treating Rs. 38,99,624/- as bogus short term capital gain when transaction was carried out on a recognised stock exchange & all the transaction details, contract notes, ledger account from the broker were submitted before AO. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal" ITA No. 1878/Ahd/2024 "1. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground challenging failure of AO to issue notice u/s 143(2) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal" 3. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, I shall be dealing with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1877/Ahd/24 and my decision therein will apply mutatis mundis to the other appeal in ITA No.1878/Ahd/24 also. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee first took up ground no. 1 contending that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was invalid since assessment was framed without issuing the mandatory jurisdictional notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 5. Ld.Counsel for the assessee first pointed out to me that this ground, thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... categorically urged that failure to e-verify the ITR was attributable to system failure, not to her. On this submission, it is mentioned herein that her submission is considered and assessment in this case is being made u/s 144 of the Act merely because the system did not allow to issued notice u/s 143(2) as no valid return was in system database. Although, the details filled in the ITR by the assessee shall be taken cognizance of." Thus, she pointed out that admittedly the assessee did file the return of income and though it was not e-verified, but the failure was not attributable to the assessee but to the department on account of technical fault in their system. She pointed out therefore that even as per the Assessing Officer the fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the fact remains that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee before framing the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 23rd March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer. The Ld.DR was also unable to distinguish the law said to be settled in this regard about the assessment order passed without issuance of the jurisdictional notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act being invalid. Though the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer that the notice u/s. 143(2) could not be issued on account of the system not generating the said notice in the absence of e-verified return in the data base of the system. 12. In the light of the above undisputed facts before me that the assessee had filed return in response to the n....