TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") arising out of Order dated 29.03.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Sections 147 r.w.s. 148B of the Act for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 6,46,010/-. The case was reopened on information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 40,23,000/-. During verification, assessee failed to provide the source of investments. After recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval of the Competent Authority, notice under Section 148 dated 31.3.2021 was issued. The assessee claimed that he has e-file ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,23,000/- made by A.O (NFAC) u/s 69 of the I.T Act for so called unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property. 2. That the source of deposits (credit entries) in Bank Account from where the payment towards purchase of property has been made is fully explained and proved. Ld. A.O as well as Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly and arbitrarily held that the appellant failed to explain the source of the entries in the HUF Bank Account. 3. That if the source of deposit in HUF Bank Account is proved and explained, it won't matter whether the payment is made from Individual Bank Account or HUF Bank Account. Ld. CIT (A) has factually as well as legally e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the assessee and that too in accordance with law." 6. Appellant/assessee through application dated 16.05.2025, prayed for filing of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 7. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the appellant/assessee filed ITR electronically on 25.01.2022, copy of which is available at page 1 of the paper books. Reassessment order dated 29.03.2022 was illegal as notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued. Copies of screen shot downloaded from portal of the assessee are at pages 72 & 73 of the paper books. Certified copy of order sheet entries is at Annexure B of reply under RTI Act dated 24.02.3025. Reliance was placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383. 4. Heard rival contentions. The additional ground raised by the assessee goes to the root of the very validity of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144B r.w.s. 147 of the Act and is a purely legal ground and thus the same is admitted for adjudication. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed return on 28.10.2021 in response to notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021. However, the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel invited our attention to 21 to 22 of the PB which contains the notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 and a copy of return filed on 28.10.2021 in response to the notice issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act even ex parte assessment cannot be made without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 8. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on by the assessee. In this case, the assessee filed return on 28.10.2021 in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.03.2022 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 84,32,240/-. While computing the income the Assessing Officer started with the income declared by the assessee in the return of income of Rs. 69,040/- declared by the assessee in the return in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, whereby the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te without even issuing a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act did not arise. The mandatory nature of that requirement is settled not only by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) but also by a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax-08 vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 388 ITR 448 Del. 15. For all the aforementioned reasons, the question framed does not arise in the present appeal and is declined to be answered. In any event, the court does not find any substantial question of law arise from the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." 10. In all the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which are referred to above, it was held t....