AMARJEET KAUR BAHRI INDIVIDUAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTER CIRCLE-7, DELHI

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:

As no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable acticle or thing was seized nor any books of accounts or documents pertaining to assessee as per sec 153C, jurisdiction to this AO does not arise. The application of section 153C is not there, the proceedings all through were without valid power given in law.

Satisfaction note for issuing 153C notice is to be recorded by AO having jurisdiction over the case of assessee. ITO, Ward 43(3). Delhi was the AO but satisfaction note dt 05/01/2021 is signed by someother officer. Satisfaction should be of the A0 and of no one else. In absence of valid satisfaction note, notice and subsequent proceedings are all invalid. Transfer of jurisdiction has been assumed by CIT(A) with no evidence on file.

The AO has erred grossly is not considering and passing any order to objection raised in letter filed on I.T portal much before final order. The AO may dissent / agree with the points raised but keeping silent thereon is not as per law and makes the final order bad in law. Separately or in final order, no consideration is there for any points raised in objection letter. It has challenged basic assumption of jurisdiction and procedural lapses. 443 IT 411(Bom) Tata Capital.

The AO has made reliance solely on the statement of Mr Kusharg Jindal, Ms Parul Ahluwalia etc. JBL. In letters dt 14/11/2021 and 20/12/2021 a written request was made before the A to provide copy of their statements and sought the opportunity to cross examine them. The AO never allowed the copy or cross examination opportunity to assessee and is against the principle of natural justice and leads to nullity- Kishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT (1980) 125 IT 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber inds vs CCE 281 CTR 241(SC), 397 IT 82(Delhi). This is only and sole evidence with the AO which is now not a good piece of evidence.

The Id. AO has failed to establish the link between alleged account in Hazir Johri dongle of JBL and the assessee. Inspite of firm denial in letters filed before him, the AO did not obtain the bank statement from bank to have confirmed detail that the said ledger account was that of the assessee and placed reliance on the statement of director/ employee of JBL. There can be number of reasons for their miss- statement but without complete evidence, this could not be proved that the two accounts in two sets of JBL were that of the assessee. In these cases, no addition can be made without conclusive evidence. Third party may do anything in its accounts and unless appellant role is proved, no addition can be justifiably made. The alleged cheque transactions do not appear in appellants bank account on the give date or 3 months thereafter.

The show cause notice dt 18/12/2021 was a 5 pages notice and wanted response on 20/12/2021 by 12:54 p.m. Just in less then 2 days, it is virtually amounting to giving no time to reply to a long show cause notice. It is against the rule of fair play.”

The assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the jurisdiction for assessment under Section 153C of the Act as well as the additions carried out by the Assessing Officer on merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/04/2023.