COGNIZANCE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :

“The order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ("Ld. CIT(A)") is erroneous as per law and on facts of the case.

Ld. CIT (A) erred in remitting the proceedings to the file of assessing officer for fresh adjudication. The CIT (A) ought to have quashed the assessment order for non-service of notice under section 148. 3. LdAO/NFAC erred in completing the assessment under section 148 by passing of order under section 147 r.ws 144 read with section 1448, without service of notice under section 148 of the Act which is prerequisite before making the reassessment.

The Notice U/s 148 dated 30.03.2021 is issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Hyderabad. However, the assessment is taken up and completed by Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, which is against the laid legal principle that that assessment cannot be completed under borrowed satisfaction.

Ld.AO/NFAC erred in issue of notice under section 148 without satisfying the conditions prescribed under section 147 and section 148 of the IT Act. The Ld. AO erred in not providing the information which formed the basis of the reassessment.

Ld.AO/NFAC erred in making the addition of Rs.66,57,250 under section 69A in respect of cash deposits made in the bank account.

The Ld.AO/NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that the deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account maintained by the appellant.

Ld.AO/NFAC erred in making the addition of Rs.86,98,250 under the head "income from business and profession".

The Ld.AO/NFAC erred in making entire receipts from business as an addition which is purely based on surmises and assumptions. The Ld. AO ought to have considered revenue and expense for the purpose of determining the income from "business or profession".

The Ld.AO/NFAC erred in law and on facts of the case levying interest under Sections 234A and 2348 respectively.

The Ld.AO/NFAC erred in law and on facts of the case by initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271A, Section 271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Act.

Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the approval of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”

The assessee company did not file it’s return of income u/sec.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the year under consideration. Based on the information regarding the cash deposit amounting to Rs.66,57,250/- as well as contract receipt of Rs.43,49,125/- the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/sec.148 dated 30.03.2021. However, there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act as well as notices issued u/sec.142(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment as best Judgment assessment

The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) and also raised the issue challenging the validity of notice u/sec.148 of the Act for want of a valid service of the said notice. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case that the assessee was suffering loss and was also struck-off from the