DINESH CHANDRA YADAV,SAHARSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4) SAHARSA, GAUTAM NAGAR KOSHI CHOWK SAHARSA

The appellant being an Individual and Member of parliament(MP) regularly assessed to income tax filed ITR for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on 31.03.2017 on total income of Rs 1122010/- 2. That a Notice under Section 148 dated 27/03/2021 was issued the appellant filed ITR in response to notice under section 148 on 26/05/2021 on total income of Rs. 1122010/-, however "Reason recorded for issuance of Notice u/s 148 was not issued /served to the appellant. 3. That The appellant filed ITR in response to notice on account of cash deposits of Rs. 51,08,000/- in the bank account during FY 2014-15. 4. That The notice issued u/s 148 dated 27.03.2021 is bad in law as Reasons were not supplied initially. 5. That Invalid Reopening u/s 148, Reopening is based on incorrect facts and without having inaccurate information or without conducting enquiry Notice 148 was issued alleging purchase of 3 properties, factual position is that only 2 properties was purchased by the appellant No valid "reason to believe" exists. 6. That The Learned AO proceeded on wrong facts, hence reopening is invalid as the reopening was made by Non application of mind. Since the very foundation of reopening i.e. alleged purchase of three properties is factually incorrect, the reason to believe is vitiated and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 deserves to be quashed." 7. That Invalid Sanction u/s 151 was obtained by the JCIT is mechanical and invalid since Based on incorrect income of Rs. 60,92,752/- and No independent satisfaction recorded. 8. That Addition in total income of the appellant was made beyond recorded reasons, the AO made addition of Rs. 21,66,208 instead of Rs. 60,92,752.00 which shows lack of nexus between reasons and addition. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of assessment under section 147 is bad in law as the 'reason to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer is based on incorrect and non-existent facts, namely alleged purchase of three immovable properties aggregating to Rs. 60,92,752/-, whereas the appellant had in fact purchased only two properties aggregating to Rs. 27,64,631/-. Hence, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is invalid and liable to be quashed." 10. That No unexplained investment as the AO failed to verify Sale deeds Payment source prior to passing assessment order.

That Addition u/s 69 of Rs. 21,66,208.00 is based on incorrect property assumption, No unexplained investment exists, addition was made without conducted proper inquiry, hence addition of Rs 2166208/- can not sustained. 12 That Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) Rs. 7,50,986 was made beyond reason recorded, without proper verification of Stamp value adopted without referring for valuation 13. That, Illegal ex-parte dismissal of appeal the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 14. That It is a settled principle of law that the appellate authority is required to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in cases of non-compliance the action of the Ld CIT Violates principles of natural justice 15. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring at income of Rs. 11,22,010/-. The assessee had declared income from other source of Rs. 12,82,012/- it was notice that during the year under consideration the assessee has purchased three immovable properties for total consideration of Rs. 60,92,752/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was re-opened after following due procedure for assessing the escaped income u/s 147/148 and duly approval was taken u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee filed return of income on 26.05.2021 in response to the notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2021. The reason for the reopening is quoted in the assessment order. The notice u/s 143(2) and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee time to time and finally a show cause notice was also issued to the assessee to complete the assessment