Shri Minhaj Ahmad Warsi, Faizabad vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Faizabad
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed
ITA 611/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2010-11 Minhaj Ahmad Warsi V. Ito-1 2180, Katra, Rudauli Faizabad Faizabad Tan/Pan:Bdapa6695M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Pinki Mahavar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 01 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 01 2020 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 22/8/2019 For Assessment Year 2010- 11, On The Following Grounds: 1. The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-I, Lucknow Did Not Appreciated That There Was A Reasonable Cause Being Medical Reasons & Therefore, Due Compliance Could Not Be Made In The Course Of Appellate Proceedings. 2. The C.I.T.(A] Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of I. T. Act Dated 13.03.2015 By Ld. A.O. Solely On The Basis Of Information Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account. The Ld. A. 0. Did Not Make Any Independent Investigation Or Enquiry. Hence The Notice Is Invalid & Subsequent Assessment Is Also Invalid. 3. The Reasons Record For Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of I. T. Act, 1961 Do Not Meet The Requirements For Issuance Of Notice, Accordingly, Reasons Are Invalid & Subsequent Assessment On The Basis Of The Reasons Is Also Invalid. 4. The Ld. C.I.T.(A) Did Not Appreciated That The Cash Deposit In Bank Account Do Not Constitute Income When It Was Deposited As Per Business Transaction & Also
For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt Pinki Mahavar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44A
