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

....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 finally relied for Reopening on para 4 mentioned in para 6 of the Reason....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 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 30.03.2019 was issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice the assessee filed here return of income on 26.11.2019 declaring....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and, 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 the relevant material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1 and 2, the same are general hence not adjudicated. It is pertinent to note....