MANICKAM RAVICHANDRAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

The first issue raised by assessee on jurisdictional issue that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is beyond the reasonable period of limitation and service by affixture is also not as per the provisions of section 282 of the Act read with rule 27 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

2. When it was confronted to ld.counsel for the assessee that had he ever communicated the correct address to the Revenue, he withdrew this ground and only submission that one more opportunity be provided to assessee to explain the cash deposit made of Rs.31.88 lakhs in his bank account. The ld. Senior DR has not raised the issue of jurisdiction because the ld.counsel for the assessee has withdrawn the ground but as regards to setting aside the issue on merits, he opposed the plea of the assessee’s counsel for the reason that the assessee never submitted any details or even initial onus casted upon him is not discharged.

After hearing both the sides, I’m of the view that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity on the issue of merits i.e., to explain the cash deposit of Rs.31.88 lakhs in his bank account. In term of the above, I remit the issue on merits back to the file of the AO, who will re-decide the issue after

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes