MANISH KUMAR JAISINGHANI,PRABHAT PLAZA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing officer erred in initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and completing the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act without following procedure laid down by various courts; which is without jurisdiction and therefore void ab-initio. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the same.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in reopening the case of the appellant in the absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income that could lead to a formation of belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the same. 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act without any reason to believe of his own and merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing and without independent application of mind which is neither legal nor proper. The assessment order so passed is thus void ab-initio and therefore requires to be quashed in toto. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the same.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act who is different from the officer, who re- opened the assessment. The order has been passed by the AO without going the material relied for re- opening of the assessment; which is totally wrong, illegal and bad in law. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the same.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in passing order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) without mentioning any specific reason or provision of Expl. 2 to S. 147, which shows that the Page 2 of 6

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions relying on third party evidence and without affording cross-examination and without making available any related records on which the AO relied against the appellant; which is against the law of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full. The learned CIT(A) erred in mechanically confirming the same. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in making additions and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming such additions of Rs. 1,64,14,710/- as unexplained money; which is patently wrong, illegal and bad in law and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld Assessing Officer erred in charging interest and leaned CIT(A) erred in confirming such interest under section 234A of Rs. 6,14,279 and 234B of Rs. 46,88,880, which is patently wrong, illegal and bad in law and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full.”

The brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual filed original return of income for AY 2015-16 on 21.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,750/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of survey proceedings carried out by Income-tax Department in the case of one “Kanha Credit Co-operative Society Maryadit, Indore” on 20.11.2014 and assessment-proceeding done in the case of said society indicating that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who made transactions of Rs. 1,64,14,710/- with said society for issuance of cheques in lieu of cash, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 through notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 calling the assessee to Page 3 of 6

In response, the assessee filed letter dated 26.03.2022 objecting to proposed assessment u/s 144 and also sought more time to submit the details. But the AO turned down assessee’s request of more time stating that the assessment was getting time-barred by 31.03.2022 and providing more time to assessee was not feasible. Further, the AO noted that the delay in completing assessment was attributed to assessee’s failure in making timely compliance of statutory notices [Para 8.0 & 8.1 of assessment-order]. Citing these reasons, the AO ultimately completed assessment u/s 144 and assessed the alleged sum of Rs. 1,64,14,710/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal raising several issues of illegality in assessment-proceedings as well as challenging the merits of addition. But the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal for non- prosecution. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us raising several grounds as mentioned in the beginning.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.