Nalinkant Shyamshanker Pandya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2012-13. AO had received an information that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.14,01,000/- in his bank a/c . In addition, there were non-cash deposits of Rs.3,39,450/- in the said bank a/c. On the basis of this information, AO had recorded his reason u/s.147 & notice u/s148 was issued but no return was filed in response to the notice . However, Assessee had replied through e-mail to the SCN of AO & given explanation regarding the cash deposits. AO considered the cash deposit of Rs.5 lakhs only as explained & the balance amount of Rs.12,40,442/- in respect of cash deposit treated as non-cash deposit was held as unexplained.
On appeal,CIT(A) had set aside the matter to the file of AO, in order to examine the additional evidences filed during the course of appeal & directed AO to make a fresh assessment thereafter.
Before the Tribunal, Assessee argued that the assessment was made without proper jurisdiction as notice u/s 148 was issued by the ITO, Godhra, who had no jurisdiction over the case as Assessee was residing in Vadodara. Relying on Pushpa Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.3604/Del/2019 dt 18/04/2024, Assessee argued that since the ITO, Godhra did not have the jurisdiction over the case, the assessment order should be quashed.
