TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [here in after referred as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,87,991/-made u/s. 69A being amount credited and cash deposited in the bank account without considering the fact that the assessee is declaring income under presumptive basis u/s. 44AE and the amount was received from plying of goods carriage, accordingly the assessee prays that the addition of Rs. 22,87,991/-confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted in full. 2. That on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of higher rate of tax u/s. 115BBE without appreciating the fact that the assessee is engaged in plying of goods carriage and not have multiple source of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is premature and not valid, thus the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for initiation and completion of the assessment is bad in law, accordingly the assessment order deserves to be held as null and void. 3. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO initiated and concluded the assessment relying upon the notice issued u/s. 142(1), dated 13/03/2018 posted in the ITBA system without quoting any Email Id and the said notice came to the knowledge of the CA on 25/06/2019, therefore the date of issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) shall be held as 25/06/2019 accordingly the return of income filed on 27/06/2019 shall be held as return of income filed in compliance to notice issued u/s. 142(1), thus the assessment con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (E). It is there humbly prayed before your honour to admit and adjudicate the additional legal jurisdictional grounds of appeal raised above. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decisions in the cases of "National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)", "VMT Spinning Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 326 (P&H)", "Siksa O Anusadhan Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112) [Orissa.HC)", "CIT Vs. Mohd. Ayyub Agency (1992) 197 ITR '637 (All.HC)". "CIT Vs. Cellulose Products of India Ltd [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.HC)- (FB)", "P.V.Doshi Vs.CIT [1978] 113 ITR 22 (Guj.HC)","CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd [1993] 200 ITR 275 (Del.HC)',"Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd Vs.CIT [1992] 198 ITR 1 (Del.HC)". 4. Briefly state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Power Corporation vs. CIT (supra) has laid down the jurisprudence that the assessee should not be prevented from raising that question before the tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. In the instant additional ground, we find that the issue of date of service of notice u/s 142(1) has been raised for the first time before us. It is claimed that the notice u/s 142(1), though uploaded in the Income Tax e-Portal, but was not electronically transmitted to any E-Mail nor sent physically by post to the assessee. To determine the legality of the ground regarding service of notice, the relevant facts relating to the service of notice through ITBA/email/post is not on record. In absence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return of income as invalid because it was filed more than 1 year 3 months late and in absence of explanation, the Assessing Officer relied upon the provisions of section 144(1)(b) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The ld DR further distinguished the cases of "PCIT Vs. Kamala Devi Sharma, and Pr.CIT Vs. M/S. Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd, relied upon by the ld AR, stating that those cases pertain to assessment of returns filed u/s 148 of the Act where issuance of notice u/s 143(2) becomes mandatory, whereas in the instant case, the return was belatedly filed in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The ld DR submitted that the AO, even issued two show cause notices dated 17.09.2019 and 23.09.2019 u/s 144 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted return filed against notice u/s 142(1) as invalid, there was no requirement to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessment completed u/s 144 is valid. The additional ground 4 is dismissed. 13. On merits, in the instant case, we find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire source of cash deposit during demonetization as cash received from the operation of Trucks and withdrawals. Although the assessee, prima facie, appears to have discharged its onus of explaining source of cash deposit, it's contentions to prove the source, hardly deserves to be accepted in entirety especially when the cash deposit vis a vis the business income was not justified. On the other hand, the Revenue's endeavour to disbelieve the assess....