JAGANNATH SAHOO,PURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI WARD, PURI, PURI

Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagannath Jagannath Sahoo Sahoo S/O. S/O. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Sridhar Sahoo, At Sridhar Sahoo, At-Kalia Devi Ward, Puri Sahi, Sahi, near near Dakhina Dakhina Kali Kali Temple, PO/PS; /Dist: Puri Temple, PO/PS; /Dist: Puri PAN/GIR No. No.DJQPS 1301 J Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 31/12/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 3.7.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10251/2019-20 20 for the assessment year 2013-14.

“1. For that, the learned 1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of well as of fact in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of well as of fact in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity of P a g e 1 | 7 hearing and in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, by upholding the addition made by the learned A.O., particularly when, the very initiation of reassessment proceeding, itself is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as such, it being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. For that, the learned Assessing officer as well as the learned CIT(A) have committed gross error of law as well as of fact in making addition of Rs.36,50,000.00, ignoring the explanation of the Appellant that, the total deposits made in the bank are arising out of agricultural income and sale of land, as such, the impugned deposits made in the bank account do not constitute income in the hand of the Assessee, as such, the impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.

3. For that, when the impugned addition has been made by the learned A.O., Ignoring the explanation of the Assessee and without providing sufficient effective opportunity of being heard to the Appellant to substantiate it, the learned CIT(A) should have deleted the addition of Rs. 36,50,000.00, instead of confirming it in the interest of justice.

4. For that, the addition of Rs.36,50,000.00 made by the learned A.Ο., treating the bank deposits as undisclosed income is completely wrong, illegal and not sustainable, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.”

P a g e 3 | 7

“

P a g e 4 | 7

P a g e 5 | 7 issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Once the notice u/s.143(2) is not validly issued, consequent proceedings cannot be held as valid. In this regard, reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act is mandatory and not procedural and if the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and looking to the fact that notice u/s.143(2) was not issued as per the instruction of CBDT (supra), therefore, the reassessment order dated 5.12.20190 is quashed being completed without jurisdiction. Consequently, Ground No.1 of the assessee stands allowed.