MR. HARCHARAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by ld. CIT(A)-33, New Delhi for the assessment year 1998-99 on the following grounds : “1. 1) The order of the learned CIT (Appeal) is bad in law and on the facts of the case.

2) That once the appeal is filed before the Honorable ITAT, the learned CIT (Appeal) has no power to enhance the income in the remand proceeding. This is because the order of the learned Assessing Officer has already merged with the original order of first appellate authority.

3) That the learned CIT (Appeal) has to review the addition made in the original appeal order and not to go beyond that jurisdiction. The direction by the Honorable ITAT is limited to the ground of appeals raised in second appeal.

4) That the learned CIT(Appeal) failed to consider the request of the assessee to call for the record relating to the reason recorded by the learned Assessing officer for the issue of notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act,1961.

5) That notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Dated 30.03.2005 was issued in the name of Harsharan Singh and not in the name of assessee. As such the proceedings against the assessee were invalid. 6) a)That all the particulars of the income were declared before the learned assessing officer including sale of jewellery under reference during the assessment proceeding. There was no escapement of any Income. It was merely a change of opinion. b) That the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the period of limitations as per section 149 of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

7) That the assessee had made declaration as per VDS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and paid due taxes thereon. The jewellery under reference were sold out of the declared items. The same items cannot be taxed twice.

8) The assumption of learned CIT (Appeal) (Parall.5) that the assessee has not disclosed the sale of jewellery in the original return is contrary to the facts of the case. No inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. The details of jewellery sale were submitted at the time of original assessment. As such time limitation of 4 years is applicable for the issue of notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

9) The contention of the learned assessing officer that the details of items of jewellery sold were not produced to co-ordinate with VDS certificate is not correct. The computation of income had the full details. Further the learned assessing officer had in his possession copy of bill no. 3559 dated 25.03.1998 for Rs. 327800/-.

10) That M/S Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar were registered with the Sale Tax department under registration No LC/16/175815/09/94 and has been filling sale tax returns regularly along with the payments of tax due.

11) Further items declared were mentioned in the VDS certificate and valuation report. There was no failure on the behalf of the assessee to produce any required documents. No additional evidence was produced before the learned CIT (Appeal).

12) That the assessee craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time or before the hearing of appeal.”