SMT. HEMAVATHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 01.12.2020 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Y. 2008-09 on following grounds of appeal. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] passed under Section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

3. The learned CIT [A] erred in confirming the order u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143 [3] of the learned Assessing Officer without adjudicating the contentions taken by the Appellant on the issue of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act without even calling, examining the records, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act is bad in law, for want of requisite jurisdiction especially the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act have not been complied with and consequently the assessment is liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that the assessment is further bad in law as reasons for issue of notice under Section 153 C of the Act have not been given and the Appellant has reasons to believe that the same has not been recorded and consequently the assessment is bad in law. The Appellant submits that mandatory conditions to assume jurisdiction is to record reasons and in the absence of the same the assessment is bad in law and liable to be cancelled.

6. The learned CIT [A] failed to appreciate that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act is further bad in law when learned Assessing Officer mentioned in the notice that he proposes to assess/reassess the income (highlighted portion 'assess/reassess your income'), learned assessing officer issued a notice without specifically specifying by what he is proposing whether he is proposing to assess or reassess and there is no specific what he is proposing in the notice and consequently the entire proceedings initiated by the said invalid notice the assessment order passed is not valid and void-ab-initio.

7. The learned CIT [A] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,10,000/- made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained investment in the hands of the Appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The learned CIT [A] erred in confirming the addition made as undisclosed capital gains by adopting sale consideration at Rs. 20,18,000/- by invoking 50C of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

urged above.

13. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.”

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the legal issue raised challenging the jurisdiction of notice issued u/s. 153C has not been decided by the Ld.CIT(A). Referring to the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) i.e. reproduced in the impugned order at page 6, the Ld.AR submitted that, nothing has been expressed on the legal issue challenged by assessee. Further, the Ld.AR filed before us, an application under Rule 46A, wherein, copy of the ledger account demonstrating payments made to Shri Ramdas from the group concerns of assessee has been filed. The Ld.AR submitted that these additional evidences demonstrates that payments were made by the assessee and her husband for purchase of property Page 4 of form the available cash balance in the group concern, in which, both of them were active. The Ld.AR emphasised that, the assessee could not procure these details at the time of assessment proceedings and therefore the same were not could not be submitted even before the Ld.CIT(A). He thus prayed for the admission of additional evidence now filed before this Tribunal.