Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-6, Bangalore dated 28.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2007-08.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The learned Assessing Officer had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the same. The orders as passed being bad in law and are liable to be quashed. 2.1 In any case, the conditions precedent for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act being absent, the re-opening of assessment was bad in law and consequently the order as passed/confirmed being also bad in law is required to be quashed. 2.2 In any case the assessing officer having not complied with legal provisions / procedure for reopening / reassessment, the consequential order becomes bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.3 In any case, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is erroneous and also being barred by limitation renders the assessment invalid and such assessment is liable to be quashed. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the technical grounds taken on reassessment as well as the notice being barred by limitation. The action of CIT(A) being not in accordance with the provisions of law is to be negated.
3. In any case and without prejudice, the learned Assesing officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as unexplained investment and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same on the ground that Page 2 of 3 the appellant has failed to prove the source of investment made. The conclusion of authorities below being contrary to facts and the law applicable is to be disregarded and the addition as made/confirmed be deleted.
4. The learned Assessing officer has erred in adding the LIC loan as income of the appellant holding that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of the outstanding liability and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. On proper appreciation of facts and the evidence available, the action of authorities below being wholly erroneous is to be negated and the addition as made/confirmed be deleted.
The appellant also denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A and 2348 of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted.
In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or atleast the additions made/confirmed be deleted and interest levied be also deleted.”
The assessee has also raised two additional grounds which are as under. “1. The learned Assessing officer has erred in not granting the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act without giving any reasoning for such denial. The appellant having made investments which are eligible for deduction u/s 80C of the Act, is eligible for deduction as claimed for and same is to be granted to the appellant.
2. The learned Assessing officer has erred in taxing the Long Term Capital Gain @ normal slab rate instead of @ 20% as prescribed u/s 112 of the Act. The action of Assessing officer being erroneous both on facts and law is to be negated and the LTCG is to be taxed @ 20% in terms of section 112 of the Act.”
This appeal was filed by the assessee after a delay of 4 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation of delay in which it is stated that the assessee has gone to his native Rayalpeta in Andhra Pradesh to attend his ailing parents and came back only on 30.05.2018 and in the absence of the assessee, the appeal memo could not be signed and filed before the Tribunal within time. The present appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal on 31.05.2018 whereas the last date of filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 27.05.2018. Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.
5. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee before the Tribunal that as per ground no. 3 raised before ld. CIT(A), this was the grievance of the assessee that the AO has not complied with the legal formalities and the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act being not related to relevant return and in any case issued beyond time limit makes the order bad in law and liable to be quashed. He submitted that this ground of appeal raised before ld. CIT(A) was not decided