Case Law Details
Arun Kanhaiya Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
I am informed that the assessment record does not contain any proof regarding service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee. There should not be any dispute that the Assessing Officer would get jurisdiction over the return of income filed by the assessee only upon service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, meaning thereby, the AO could not scrutinize the return of income without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in accordance with law. I find support for this legal proposition from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362). Accordingly, in the present case, the impugned assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. In view of the above, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by learned CIT(A)-38, Mumbai and it relates to assessment year 200708. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,49,600/- being alleged on-money payment on purchase of a flat.
2. The appeal is barred by limitation by 94 days. The assessee has filed a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. It is stated that the assessee got injured in a bike accident resulting in fractures in neck, hand and spine and the same has resulted in delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has also furnished copies of medical report in support of same.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
