BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points of law and facts. 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act. 3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not deciding ground for furnishing reasons for reopening assessment resulting into invalid of reassessment order. The reassessment is invalid, illegal and abinitio void. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act. 5. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in setting aside the issue of disallowance of Short Term Capital loss of Rs.3,25,511/- to Assessing Officer for verification.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in setting aside the ground of not setting off of current year business loss against addition/disallowance made in the assessment to the Assessing Officer, for verification. 7. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in setting aside the ground of assessing total income at Rs. 56,86,597/- to the Assessing Officer for verification. 8. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not considering the fact that no notice u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act was issued against return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act. 9. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not considering the fact that interest u/s 234A of IT. Act was wrongly levied because return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of 1.T. Act was filed within due date of notice u/s 148 of Income-tax Act. 10. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing ground of raising demand of Rs.25,34,850/-. 11. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time. . 5. We have heard Shri Hemanshu Shah, the Ld. AR and Shri Rajeev Garg, the Ld. SR-DR. We do not find any merit in the legal grounds taken by the assessee in the present appeal. The reason for reopening was duly provided to the assessee. The Ld. AR has vehemently argued on the issue of no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act being issued by the AO in pursuance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It is found that the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee had merely stated that the return filed earlier on 31.07.2012 should be taken into consideration for compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. As per the scheme of e-filing of return, the assessee had to file a fresh return u/s. 148 of the Act on the Departmental portal, which was not done