TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the affidavit which is as under: "1..... 2. Basically, I am a resident of USA. I have a 9 years old son, who is suffering from a behavioral disorder viz., Autism Spectrum. As a mother, it is very depressing to manage a child with autism disorder who is nonverbal and need continuous one on one supervision. I used to draw necessary courage and mental strength from the motivational talks of my mother. She passed away on 14/5/2022 at the age of 65 years and it was indeed a shocking incident for me. I am still not able to recover from the mental depression caused on account of death of my mother. 3. As such, I could not notice the order of the Ld. CIT(a) sent to my e-mail. I came to know about the appeal order only at the time of receipt of notice dated 23/12/2022 issued by the Assessing Officer to file explanation in response U/s. 271AAC. 4. My appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dealt with by a Counsel at Hyderabad, who had expressed his inability to file the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT in Visakhapatnam. Therefore, I had to consult a few persons to find out a suitable counsel at Visakhapatnam. 5. In spite of the above, I cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue with respect to legality of the non-issuance of notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment completed by the Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Vijayawada U/s. 143(3) of the Act without issue of notice U/s. 143(2) is invalid and void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 46,68,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 53,68,000/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the appellant satisfactorily explained the cash deposits from the following sources: (i) Own savings Rs. 18,75,000 (ii) Gift From Father in law Rs. 15,80,000 (iii) Gift from Mother Rs. 6,50,000 (iv) Gift from Brother Rs. 4,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs based on such notice is non-est in the eyes of law. The Ld. AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors [2023] 451 ITR 0027 (Bom.). He therefore pleaded that the assessment proceedings are void-ab-initio and the assessment order deserves to be quashed. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ["Ld. DR"] submitted that the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO and has not contested the issue of unsigned notice before the lower authorities. The Ld. DR also referred to the e-mail received from the Income Tax Officer, WardInternational Taxation, Vijayawada stating that when the PAN was migrated to the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole on 20/08/2018 and thereafter the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ongole manually signed the notice U/s. 143(2) and served the same on 20/09/2018. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the notice U/s. 143(2) was ori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of section 292B of the Act. On this issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Umashankar Mishra vs. CIT [1982] 11 Taxman 75 (MP) has taken a similar view which reads as under: "4. The first question for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued to the assessee under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was a valid notice. Now, the Tribunal has found that that notice was not signed by the ITO. Section 282 of the Act provides that a notice under the Act may be served on the person named therein as if it were a summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Subrule (3) of Rule 1 of O.5, CPC, provides that every summons shall be signed by the judge or such officer, as he appoints. In view of this provision, it must be held that the notice to show cause why penalty should hot be levied issued by the ITO should have been signed by the ITO and the omission to do so invalidated the notice. In B.K. Gooyee v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 109 (Cal), the question for consideration was whether the absence of the signature of the ITO on the notice under section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was a mere irregularity or ....