2025 (9) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3.2025 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 2. For that on the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer issuing the notice u/s. 143(2) of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on 09.08.2018 did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, as there was no mention of the type of scrutiny under which the case of the assessee has been selected, hence the notice is bad-in-law and the assessment order passed on the basis of such notice is baseless and should be quashed. 3. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. was wrong in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) on 09.08.2018 without complying to the CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 and so the notice issued u/s. 143(2) is not valid as per Provision o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal income of Rs. 55,720/-. Thereafter, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for the various details along with evidences qua the money receipts from M/s Merygold Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Jagkarta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and Madhudhan Barter Pvt. Ltd. The same was replied by the assessee vide submission dated 22.11.2022 submitting therein all the details/evidences by before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee had received Rs. 12,35,000/- from M/s Merygold Mercantiles Private Limited on different dates towards sale of investments. Similarly, the assessee received Rs. 15,00,000/- in total from M/s Jagkarta Electricals Private Limi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es namely M/s Merygold Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. on account of sale of investments and also refund of advance given earlier. We note that so far as the third parties M/s Madhudhan Barter Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the assessee has not received any money but in fact Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid to the party for purchase of investments. The assessee has filed evidences before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer had not done any verification on the information/evidences furnished by the assessee and also available on website portal of the department. Therefore, so far as the first two parties are concerned, the assessee had received money from sale of investments besides receiving refund of advance to second party. The assessee had not r....