2024 (9) TMI 1923

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. That the reopening of the proceedings is bad in law in the absence of valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That reopening of assessment is barred by limitation prescribed under section 149 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and non-est as the same have been concluded without following the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). 4. That the impugned Order had been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in passing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Bhoti language in Govt. Primary School, Khurik amounting to Rs. 52000/- As per the report of the Income Tax Officer, Intelligence and Criminal Investigation, Assessee could not explain the cash deposits during demonetization period and thereafter issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2021 which was not served on the registered email id of the Assessee. Then, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee on 15.11.2021, 02.02.2022, 15.02.2022 and 02.03.2022. The Assessee could not respond to the above notices as he was unaware of the initiation of proceedings against him because all the notices were merely uploaded on the ITBA portal, neither they were sent o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause of no supporting evidence. Further, the AO had made clear observation in the assessment order that the source of cash deposit has not been established. Hence, the AO has rightly held the cash deposited in the bank during demonetization as appellant's own money. 6.1.11 Hence, it is held that no cogent explanation has been provided by the appellant either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellant proceedings. The contentions of the appellant raised in the ground of appeal are not supported by any tangible evidence or documents. Accordingly, it is clear that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proof as required under the respective provisions to explain the source of the cash credit in the bank acc....