JAHANGIR SYED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.11.2023,

2
Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad.

which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer
(for short “A.O.”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(for short “the Act”) dated 31.12.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos. 3 to 8
taken before him on the very issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019 is invalid and is without juri iction as no statutory notice u/s 143(2) had been issued.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Ld. AO erred in issuing the notice u/s 142(1)(i) of the Act dt. 06.12.2019 for calling for return of income beyond the time limit of six years and completing the scrutiny assessment on the basis of the said notice, which is invalid and is without juri iction.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dt. 31-12-2019 is invalid ab initio on the ground that no notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued as seen from the very assessment order.
6. Without prejudicial to ground nos. 1 to 4, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudicating ground nos. 9 to 18 taken before him on the non- applicability of the provisions of Section 45 r.w.s 50C of the Act.
7. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the details of litigation attached to the impugned property i.e., Civil suit in WP No. 26405/2012 that had been numbered as WP No. 484/2017 on the file of Telangana High Court had been duly submitted to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings on 19.12.2019. 8) a) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the submission of full details of litigation attached to the impugned sale to the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad before whom the appeal has been instituted.

3
Jahangir Syed, Hyderabad.

8) b) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that full details of litigation attached to the impugned sale have been duly submitted before the CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad on 18.03.2020
& 29.12.2020 through paper books during the course of hearing before him.
8) c) Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in observing at Para no. 6 of his order that the appellant has not filed any documentary evidences to substantiate his claim.
9. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”