Advit Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

“1.

That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without going either into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal filed by the appellant.

Without prejudice to Ground no. 1,

2.

That, on facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment order made u/s 147 rws 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, Lg67 is bad in law. That, the Ld AO erred in making the assessment order without considering written submissions made by the appellant; That, the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at income of Rs 71,23,740/- in terms of notice issued u/s 148 on 27.03.2024; '

3.

That on facts and in circumstances of the case, the issuance of notice u/s 14g of the Income Tax Act, 196I without recording that the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment is represented in the form of an asset is bad-in-law;

4.

. That, without prejudice to other grounds of appeal, notice u/s 148 should have been issued through automated allocation system and in faceless manner post notification of scheme on e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022;

5.

That, initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act following the procedure u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the proviso to section 148A read with Explanation 2(iv) to section the appellant (not being the searched person) from the benefit of and giving blanket jurisdiction to Ao to reopen assessment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

6.

That, on facts and circumstances of the case, copy of prior approval u/s 14g (Explanation 2(iv)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been supplied to the appellant along with the notice and despite specifically asking during the course of the assessment proceedings. That ld AO does not have the jurisdiction to continue with the assessment without supplying the copy of such approval duly identifying the incriminating material found in search qua the appellant.

7.

That the appellant had requested the Ld Ao for supplying statement and cross examination of Sh Deepak Agarwal/Sh Himanshu Verma, which was not considered and to provide the copy of documents collected from third parties at its back which was not supplied to the appellant till date. That the assessment order passed without complying with the principles of natural justice is void;

8.

That, on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld AO erred in making addition of Rs 71,50,000/- in respect of unsecured loan accepted from M/s Highrise securities and Trading (p) Ltd u/ s 6g of the income Tax Act, 1961;

9.

That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld AO erred in continuing with the assessment proceedings without supplying the copy of the approval obtained from Board in terms of section 144B(g) of the Income Tax Act, 196l.

10.

That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”