SHEETAL SANDEEP MEHER,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD1(2), , JALGAON

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the reasons recorded for reopening did not justify issuance of notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 and therefore, the said asst. order ought to have been declared as bad in law.

3. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the approval u/s 151 was granted in a technical manner without application of mind and hence, the notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 itself was bad in law and therefore, the said asst. order u/s 147 ought to have been declared as null and void in law.

4. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. merely on the basis of information received from Inv. Wing without any independent verification and independent application of mind and therefore, 148 for A.Y.2013 - 14 itself was illegal and therefore, the asst. order u/s 147 ought to have been declared as bad in law.

5. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the relevant material relied upon by the A.O. for reopening the case was never confronted to the appellant till the completion of the asst. proceedings and hence, the said additions made in the asst. order u/s 147 were not justified in law.

6. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.5,78,170 made by the A.O. in the asst. order passed u/s 147 without appreciating that the said additions were not justified on merits and therefore, the same ought to have deleted.

.”

5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual furnished its return disclosing income of Rs.2,45,640/- on 31-07-2013. On the basis of certain information gathered in the case of other assessee’s it was discovered that the present assessee is involved in penny stock transactions & shown some exempted income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act from bogus long term capital gain. After recording reasons & prior approval from competent authority, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish return of income. The assessee furnished its return of income & made compliance to the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act.

However, the AO remained unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee & completed the reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.8,23,810/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,45,640/-. The AO charged tax @ 30% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act on the income of Rs.5,78,170/- & also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 26-09-2021. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred first appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC.

7. Ld. AR submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is bad in law. Ld. AR further submitted that the notices of hearing were sent by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the email id i.e. meherpranav5@gmail.com whereas the official email id mentioned in the ITBA portal as well as on Form 35 was mehersandeep@rediffmail.com and, therefore, the assessee remained unaware from the dates of hearing provided by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above circumstances, the counsel of the assessee requested before the bench that one more opportunity may kindly be allowed to the assessee so that she can substantiate her case before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.