TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.CIT(A), Delhi- 19/10582/2018-19 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 25.12.2017 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the ITO, Ward-58(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The grounds raised by assessee are as follows:- "1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the assessing officer passed us 144 r.w.s 147 which is without Jurisdiction. The assessment is completed by Ward 58(2) Delhi while jurisdiction of the assessee is Ward 58(1) Delhi as per the income tax portal and 1TR filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 dated 29.07.2010 2) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which is also reflecting on the income tax portal. 4) The lid. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 which is based in mechanical approvals from PCII, Delhi-20. 5) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the order of the assessing officer which was passed on the basis of reasons to believe which were erroneous and were based on borrowed satisfaction. 6) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in confirming the addition of Rs. 86,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 69A 7) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 of the Act has been issued with reasons to believe that the assessee has not filed return of income for AY 2010-11 which is specified in the reasons for reopening the assessment. Ld. AR has submitted that there is complete non-application of mind of the assessing officer in recording reasons that the assessee has not filed his return of income whereas the assessee has filed his return of income on 29.07.2010 which is appearing on the income tax portal also. 3. At outset, Ld. AR has also pointed out that the assessing officer issued notices during the assessment proceedings at the following addresses: 1) 201 Maittiora Complex Shakarpur Delhi-92 2) U 18. Main Market, Shakarpur, Delhi-92 3) A-20 Baldev Park Ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee i.e. at U-18, Main Market, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 and affixing it on last known address which is not the address of the assessee. The Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on facts in not affixing the notice at the address mentioned in the PAN database of the assessee or at the address which was given in the last return filed by the assessee for the AY 2017-18. There is also substance in the contention of ld. AR that the Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on facts in not serving notices on the email id of the assessee and by not contacting the assessee on the contact no. available on the ITBA portal. 5. Next, both, in the reasons recorded and the approval given by the PCIT, it is the stand of the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e nonapplication of mind of the assessing officer in passing assessment order for AY 2010-11 on the basis of alleged bank statement of FY 2010-11. 7. Lastly the contention of ld. AR is that notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s.l47 of the Act was passed on 25.12.2017 making additions of Rs. 86,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on alleged unexplained cash deposits in Indusind Bank Lajpat Nagar Branch. The above notices and order were not received by the assessee and hence the assessment was done ex parte. Ld. AR submitted that the professional of the assessee observed outstanding demand on portal of the assessee in September 2018 and informed the assessee about the same. The assessee requested t....