2023 (10) TMI 1531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 and therefore order passed by the ITO is bad in Law and Void. Your Appellant submits that the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.3.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 is bad in Law and Time Barred and therefore not operative and also the day of issue of Notice was Saturday a Holiday in Government Office and therefore the issue of Notice is bad in Law. 2. (a) Without prejudice your Appellant submits that the reasons recorded by the AO for Reopening the assessment are dated 27.11.2019 which means after issue of notice u/s. 148 of 30-03-2019 making the entire proceedings bad in Law. (b) Further also the Reasons Recorded are not valid since para - 4 mentions "inquires made by the AO" is left blank and incomplete still it has been f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant submits that since the Assessee had genuine and bonafidly belief that his Income is not liable to tax and is not required to file Return of Income in time, was for good and valid reason and therefore Interest of Rs. 35,496/- u/s. 234A is not chargeable and also is not correctly worked out. 3. Your Appellant also submits that Interest u/s. 234B is also not chargeable since your Appellant was not liable to pay Advance Tax u/s. 208 of the Act and hence there is no question of his failure and Section does not apply and therefore Interest of Rs. 37,944/- be deleted." 3. The assessee has not filed her return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The case was reopened after recording the reasons and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Late Shri Rameshbhai Mali a joint owner of the land and thus, she inherited the share in land. The Ld. AR submitted that on sale of land, she received Rs. 5,40,000/- as here right as "Samdi Apnay" (consent giver) confirming party. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made on this account and treating the said amount as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer is not correct. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the treatment given by the Assessing Officer to the income of the assessee deriving from the sale of land as income from other sources was right as the assessee is not a seller but a confirming party. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all th....