TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) [03-10-2024] as the same was issued beyond the 'surviving period' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with TOLA and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. GROUND NO. II 2. That the re-opening notice issued u/s.148 has been issued without obtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act from the specified authority as envisaged in the provisions of the section 151(ii) of the Act and hence the same is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the re-opening notice and corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled in limine. GROUND NO. III 3. a. That the Order passed u/s.148A(d) and the corresponding reopening notice issued u/s.148 on 27th July, 2022 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Raipur ('the Ld. JAO') and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer ("the Ld. FAO) thereby violating the mandatory provisions enshrined u/s.151A of the Act r. w. the No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly be deleted. GROUND NO. VI 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. ITA No. 501/RPR/2024 (AY 2014-15) Ground No. I 1. That the re-opening notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s. 148 under the amended provisions of law is barred by limitation, unsustainable, invalid, void ab initio and untenable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) [03-10-2024] as the same was issued beyond the 'surviving period' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with TOLA and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. GROUND NO. II 2. That the re-opening notice issued u/s.148 has been issued without obtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act from the specified authority as envisaged in the provisions of the section 151(ii) of the Act and hence the same is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the re-opening notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mptions & surmises and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the deposits does not belong to the appellant and that he is only earning commission income on such amount which is duly disclosed in the return of income filed, hence, it is earnestly prayed that the unjustified addition of Rs. 2,89,18,520/- may kindly be deleted. GROUND NO. VI 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Since the aforesaid two appeals pertains to the same assessee having identical, interconnected and common controversies involved therein, therefore, these two appeals are heard together and taken up for adjudication under this common order. Accordingly, ITA 500/RPR/2024 is picked up as the lead case, wherein our decision and observations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal in ITA No. 501/RPR/2024. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Chetan Sahu, is an individual have filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14, declaring total income at Rs.1,93,220/-. Subsequently, as per information received from Investigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from Investigation Wing and copy of statement furnished by the assessee, in response, there was no compliance by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. AO, concluded that, the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of the amount which had been credited in the bank account of his so-called proprietorship business entity, therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,13,02,086/- was proposed to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and to be added to the income of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was asked to furnish details of utilization of cash withdrawal from the subject bank account. In absence of non-compliance by the assessee to the show cause notice issued dated 17.05.2023, he proposed addition u/s 69A was made to the written income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee remain noncompliant during the appellate proceedings towards all the notices issued to the assessee vide communications dated 29.03.2024, 05.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 07.08.2024 and 16.09.2024. It is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant had not filed any response towards the notices, therefore, the br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entered the fray. 5.4 It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful plaintiff is favoured and prejudicial of him who is careless. Viewed thus, it is presumed that the appellant has no further cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in this impugned appeal. It is trite that the onus is on person making the claim, and the primary responsibility/onus/burden for proving the claim made before the tax authorities (Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities) lies with the assessee/appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to even discharge the primary onus/burden statutorily & judicially cast upon him to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of appeal inspite of adequate time and opportunities given as brought out in the foregoing paras. 5.5 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.8 Relevant contents of the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 is extracted below: 5.9 In view of the above, in the pertaining and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO for adding Rs. 1,13,02,086/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant is dismissed. 5.10 Before parting, it is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the additions/disallowances made by the AO is sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 8. The assessee thereafter, on dismissal of his appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), had further opted to carry the matter by way of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de. 13. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR, representing the revenue have placed her strong reliance on the orders of revenue authorities and have requested to uphold the same. 14. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon. Ostensibly, the facts placed before us by the Ld. AR that the assessee was not validly put to notice by the Ld. CIT(A), by serving the notices on the email ID preferred by him, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated, found to be correct. Under such circumstances, the multiple legal contentions raised by the Ld. AR representing the case of the assessee are not there before the Ld. CIT(A), though a legal ground challenging the issue of limitation while passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was assailed by the assessee, but in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority, such contention are not adjudicated. Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issues on exparte basis as per his wisdom on the basis of material available before him. In view of such facts as the assessee was divested on account of sufficien....