R.K. Panda ORDER
R.K. Panda, Member (A)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, relating to Assessment year 2008-09.
2. Fact of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income on 27.09.2008, declaring income of Rs. 42,396/-. In this case, information was received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of share capital. The Assessing Officer, thereafter initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act after recording the reasons and with the approval of the competent authority. The reasons so recorded were provided to the assessee and the objections to the reopening filed by the assessee were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee and rejecting the objections of the assessee to such reopening of assessment for non-issue of notice u/s. 148, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 31,02,400/-, wherein, he made addition of Rs. 30 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act and further an amount of Rs. 60,000/- being unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining the accommodation entries u/s. 69C of the Act.
3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment. However, the learned CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of reopening of assessment proceedings as well as on the merit.
4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:-
1. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law & against the facts and circumstance of the case.
2. Because, Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in rejecting the ground that notice u/s. 148 is issued beyond limitation, without any evidence and in violation of principle that onus is on AO who issued the notice to prove validity of issuance in terms of date etc., hence alleged notice is barred by limitation provided u/s. 149 of Act and is illegal.
3. Because, Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the service by affixture valid by wrongly holding that, since the 31st March was the last day of service hence service by affixture without any service by post etc. is valid, which is contrary to S. 282 of Act read with provisions of CPC as held in scores of cases, besides even alleged service is not as per law, hence all the proceedings are beyond S. 148/149 and are void ab initio.
4. Because, without prejudice to above, in alternative, Id. CIT(A) erred in justifying the validity of notice u/s. 143(2), by wrongly invoking provisions of S. 292BB, being issued without filing of return of income, as such assumption of jurisdiction and consequent order u/s. 143(3) is illegal.
5. Because, without prejudice to above, in alternative, Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the validity of notice u/s. 148 which is issued with vague/wrong reasons without any application of mind and satisfaction of Id. AO and/or of approving authority sheerly to conduct roving enquiries only, hence notice is beyond jurisdiction.
6. Because, without prejudice to above, in alternative, on merits, ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 30.6 lakhs u/s. 68/69C being the share application in whole disregard of the material on record merely on the basis of a general third party unilateral statement that too without providing opportunity to cross examine in terms of M/s. Andaman Timber Ind. (SC) and without conducting any enqu........