TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 by raising following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the grounds of appear hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2.1 For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned. PCIT is not justified for not taking cognizance in the order passed of the learned Assessing Officer after considering all the document filed by the appellant company. 2.2 For that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned. PCIT failed to understand that whatever interest earned by the appellant company is out of fixed deposit from Nationalized bank and the interest earned is duly reflected in Form 26AS as well as the TDS deducted is also reflected. 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act 1961 is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab initio and bad in law in any case the order passed by the learned PCIT is fit to be quashed. 3. For that the appellant reserves its right to file detail submission at the time of hearing. 4. For that the appellant craves leave to urge add or alter any other ground at the time of hearing." 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant company has filed its return of income on 27/10/2022 disclosing an income of Rs. 11,55,740/- in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The name of the said company was struck off from register of company due to non-operation of business and thereafter the appellant company filed an application before the National ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice under Section 263 of the Act was issued to the appellant company by the ld. PCIT on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not verified the source of investment and interest received thereon. The ld. PCIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has mentioned that the appellant company's fixed deposit was increased from Rs. 12,58,97,878/- in A.Y. 2017-18 to Rs. 15,99,64,720/- and the interest income was decreased from Rs. 1,02,04,535/- in A.Y. 2017-18 to Rs. 86,50,836/- in A.Y. 2018-19 which was never verified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and nor any explanation was sought from the appellant company. The ld. PCIT, Dhanbad, therefore, invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the notice and the date on which response is sought for. This is therefore violative of the mandate as prescribed in the Act and also as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court (supra). Therefore, on this score alone, the notice U/s 148A(b) of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings becomes a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law." As such, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act be treated as invalid. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR), on the other hand, though, justified the validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, he fairly conceded that in view of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Hig....