Krishan Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

“1.

That on facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of law and the judicial precedents in this regard, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO under Section 250 / 147 r.w.s. 144 of the act is unjust, invalid, void and time-barred both in eyes of law and on facts and as such the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at the income of Rs. 6,09,43,888/-.

2.

That the present proceedings are void-ab-initio as the notice under Section 148A or 148 was never served upon the appellant.

3.

That the proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 are void and nonest as they are in gross violation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 and notifications and guidelines issued thereupon from time to time.

4.

That as such, no reasons or intimation for conducting the assessment in accordance with non-faceless manner was ever intimated to the appellant which is a violation of procedure established under law and violates the basic principles of natural justice.

5.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay caused in filing the appeal was Bonafide and due to purported communication at an incorrect address belonging to the appellant which caused an inordinate delay which was to be condoned hence.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law in not judiciously exercising his power in reaching the appellant at the address mentioned in the bank statement of the appellant which voids the entire assessment proceedings.

7.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Ld. Assessing Officer had proceeded on a pre-conceived notion in adding both the cash receipts as well as cash withdrawals as appearing in the information about the bank of the appellant without bringing any incriminating material on record instead of true income in violation to the mandate of the provisions of Section 144 which warrants best judgment and not mechanical assessment.

8.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the provisions of unexplained money could not have been made applicable to the cash withdrawals as they were simply out of the cash deposits as well as the previous year balance in the bank.

9.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 69A are wholly inapplicable to the facts of the case and the additions made under the said section are void-ab-initio.

10.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Ld. Assessing Officer erred to provide the reasons to believe as well as the Approval note as per the provisions of Section 151 which is sine-qua-none to enable the appellant to object to the same in a fair manner.

11.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that in any case, the approval recoded by the concerned authority was void, absent minded and nonest being contrary to the provisions and procedure established under law.

12.

That the provisions of Section 115BBE are inapplicable to the impugned financial year 2016-17, more precisely to the transactions which took place during the pre-demonetization period and hence, the normal rate of taxation shall be applicable if at all the additions are to be confirmed.

13.

That the penalty proceedings have been incorrectly initiated and interest incorrectly levied under the provisions of law.

14.

That the appellant craves leave, to add, to alter and to delete all or any grounds of this appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

15.

That the appellant craves leave, to adduce any additional evidence in accordance with the provisions of law before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”