The assessment order passed beyond statutory limits is void, upholding the importance of adhering to timeframes in tax assessment processes.

आदेश/ORDER

Per Manjunatha, G. A.M

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 12.01.2023 of the learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, relating to A.Y.2017-18.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:

“1. The Final assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,HYD (herein after referred to as 'AO) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. A.O erred in reopening of the assessment without fairly and judiciously appreciating the facts of the case which is incorrect and unjustified.

3. The Assessing Officer, while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, has not enclosed the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act and the sanction accorded u/s 151 of the Act, which, thus the notice issued is itself invalid and is without jurisdiction.

4. The Ld. A.O. ought to have obtained the prior approval of the competent authority before issuing notice u/s 148 as laid down under the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961.

5. The Ld. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without having reasonable satisfaction or bonafide belief on his part to show that the assessee's actual income has escaped assessment.

6. The Ld. A.O erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction which is incorrect and unjustified.

7. The Ld. A.O erred in not applying his independent mind and has not made any proper inquiry and reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act which is incorrect and against the principles of natural justice.

8. The Ld. A.O made an addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- as unexplained Investment u/s 69 without appreciating the facts of the case which is incorrect and bad in law.

9. The Ld. A.O erred in making a huge addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- to the income of the assessee without providing proper opportunity of being heard which is against the principles of natural justice.

10. 11. 12. The Ld. A.O has erred in reopening the assessment without recording the reasons and without communicating the reasons for reopening which is incorrect and unjustified.

11. The Ld. A.O made a huge addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- on the basis of loose sheets those of which have been made based on the culled out seized material which is nothing but an un-authenticated, unsigned, un-reliable.

12. The Ld. A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that rough excel sheets found with other person are not documentary evidence and making addition u/s 69 of the Act on the basis of the same is unjustified.

13. The Ld. A.O grossly erred in treating the amounts found in some excel sheet which do not clearly communicate as to whether the figures represent receipts or payments and making addition based on same is incorrect and

14. The Ld. A.O failed to pass a lucid and clear order stating as to how the figures found in a third persons place in the excel sheet represented unexplained cash in the hands of the assessee.

15. The Ld. A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee 15. has transferred amount towards sale consideration to M/s Skill Promoters Private Ltd through proper banking channels.

16. The Ld. A.O making a huge addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- without 16. having any documentary and corroborative evidence especially u/s 69 as unexplained investment which is baseless.

17. The Ld. A.O ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee is a nonresident sa