2025 (12) TMI 651

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal Assessing Officer is illegal in view of the notifications dated 28.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 which states that the notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued through automated allocation only and the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not at legally competent to issue notice under section 148 of the Act as the same was required to be issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre and as such the proceedings initiated are illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by limitation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Rajeev Bansal (2023) 167 Taxmann.com 70(SC) WHARE the court held that for AY 2015-16, any notice issued after 01.04.2021 is not sustainable in as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... borrowed information without application of mind much less independent application of mind and hence untenable. 8. That without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 46.50,000- made on account of alleged absence of source of purchase of immovable property applying the provisions of Section 69 read with 115B in utter disregard of the explanations rendered and as such the addition upheld is arbitrary and unjustified. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the evidence in respect of amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 26,50,000/-, гесeived from Sh. Jeet Pal Mittal and Sh. Rajinder Pal Mittal respectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../-. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 30.07.2022 on the basis of information flagged as High Risk CRIU/VRU relating to investment of Rs. 94,71,000/- in purchase of commercial land jointly with her son. The assessee explained the source of investment as loans received from various parties. The Assessing Officer accepted some sources and rejected others aggregating to Rs. 71,50,000/-, treating them as unexplained investment under section 69. The CIT(A), after detailed consideration, deleted Rs. 25,00,000/- relating to loan from Shri Darshan Kumar and confirmed the balance addition of Rs. 46,50,000/-. 5. Against this order the present appeal is filed. 6. However, before entering into merits, the preliminary legal....