G.D. Padmahshali ORDER
G.D. Padmahshali, Member (A)
1. Appeal of the assessee is assailed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, [for short "CIT, (A)"] dt. 20/01/2020 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short "the Act"] which dove out of assessment order dt. 26/12/2018 passed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed by ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar [for short "AO"] for the assessment year [for short "AY"] 2011-12.
2. Tersely stated that facts borne out of case records;
2.1 The assessee is a resident individual engaged in Multi-Level-Marketing on agency basis, had filed his return of income [in short "ITR"] for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of ` 3,76,966/- under presumptive taxation u/s. 44AD of the Act.
2.2 On the basis of annual information return [in short "AIR"] observing the cash deposits into saving bank account of the assessee, the Ld. AO invoked the reassessment jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s. 148 and eventually framed the assessment by bringing to tax the entire cash deposits of ` 47,63,510/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 coupled with net commission income after allowing 50% deduction u/s. 44AD of the Act.
2.3 When matter travelled before first appellate authority [in short "FAA"] in an appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) reiterating the findings confirmed the action of Ld. AO.
2.4 Aggrieved by the actions of both the tax authorities below [in short "TAB"] the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. We state that, grounds raised in the appeal memo are inconsonance with rule 8 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short "ITAT-Rules"], hence it shall suffice to articulate that, ground number 1 to 4 alleged against the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction and the balance grounds are directed against merits of the case. Both the parties to the present appeal expressed their concurrence to the effect that, if the legal ground is adjudicated in favour of the appellant, then the later grounds would turn academic calling no adjudication, hence we shall first deal with the legal grounds directed against assumption of 148 jurisdiction as contra-legem.
4. After hearing to rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short "ITAT, Rules"] perused the material placed on records till the date of conclusive hearing and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position which are forewarned to either parties.
5. Without touching merits of the case, we note that,
5.1 Non filing of ITR and no response to the letter issued to assessee coupled with information received through AIR stating cash deposits of ` 47,63,510/- in saving bank account, has compositely formed a basis for invocation of reassessment jurisdiction u/s. 148.
5.2 Per contra, on the face of records it glaringly evident that, the Ld. AO himself at para 3 placed at page 2 of his order categorically noted his finding to the effect of assessee having filed his ITR on 10/10/2011, thus it amply demonstrates lack of enquiry by the Ld. AO before exercising the jurisdiction to reopen the case u/s. 148 of the A........