RAJ KUMAR,HISAR vs. ITO WARD - 2, HISAR

ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JM:

raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act without appreciating that the same were without jurisdiction and hence deserved to be quashed as such. 1.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a “reason to believe” that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal, untenable and therefore unsustainable. 1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that reasons recorded mechanically without application of mind do not constitute valid reasons to believe for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 1.3 That in absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 of the Act, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in disposing off the appeal ex- parte without granting any fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was reasonable cause for the appellant for not causing appearance on the dates fixed for hearing and as such disposal of the appeal without granting fair, meaningful and proper opportunity is untenable. 2.2. That even otherwise, an order passed in limine without effectively disposing of the grounds raised by the appellant is in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained credit entries in bank account on protective basis.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- representing cash received from Sh. Kailash Bansal in joint account on protective basis

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest 2 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant. Prayer: It is therefore prayed that, it be held that order disposing of the appeal ex parte by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside. It is further prayed that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deserves to be quashed as such. It is also prayed that, additions made and sustained along with interest levied may kindly be deleted and, appeal of the appellant be allowed.”