PARVEEN KUMAR KAPOOR,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

BEFORE SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Parveen Kumar Kapoor Vs. DCIT Central Circle -2 C/o RRA Taxindia D-28, Faridabad South Extension, Pat-1, New Delhi-110049 PAN No.ABMPK7969F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Sh. P N Barnwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 19/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon dated 19.01.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2011- 12. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

“1. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and issuing of notice u/s 153A of the Act.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O, in making addition of Rs. 2,45,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account as alleged income from undisclosed sources and that too in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act.

4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 2,45,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.