IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH
KULDIP SINGH, J.M. & B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M.
Narendra Kumar Gill v. ITO
I.T.A. No. 1532/Del/2017
22 December, 2020
Appellant by: Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate
Respondent by: Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, dated 25-1-2017.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee :--
'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings and confirming the additions so made by the learned assessing officer by disallowing the capital gains as claimed by the assessee. The addition made therein has been made with preconceived notions and such impugned order is without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed, as such.
2. That the impugned order so passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law as it is devoid of the acknowledgment of the fact that no valid notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee prior to culmination of the reassessment proceedings and as such, the assessment so made is liable to be quashed.
2.1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act when the said notice was issued to 'Narendra Kumar Gill (HUF)' having a different PAN, however, the assessment as frames was that of the 'individual' bearing a different PAN as that mentioned on the notice under section 148 of the Act.