IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA No.214/PUN/2022 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No.301, Kamala Residency, Ward-3(3), Pune CTS No.1050, Shivajinagar, Model Colony, Pune 411 016 Maharashtra PAN : AAJPL7246E Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.N. Puranik Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi which in turn is arising out of the Assessment order dated

31.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“Modified Grounds

1) Lower Authorities/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly

erred in not holding the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) as Bad in Law,

void and ab-initio invalid.

Appellant pray to hold so and cancel the Order.

2) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the Order

u/s 143(3) as valid.

Appellant prays to annul the same holding it as Bad in Law, without jurisdiction for lack of service of notice u/s 143(2) on the Assessee.

3) Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,20,09,000/-u/s. 68 made by Assessing Officer.

Appellant prays to delete the same as provisions of Sec.68 are not at all applicable to the Facts of the case. "

4) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in observing "The Claim u/s 54F @Rs.2,05,78,694/- Which is investment in residential house, is rejected because Transaction leading to Capital Gain itself is rejected and is treated as business income."

Appellant prays for declaring claim of Long Term Capital Gain & u/s 54F is valid and allowed, And declare that order is Bad in Law, being without application of mind and violative of powers of CIT(A).

5) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not being Just &

Fair, Appellant pray for relief accepting Returned Income.

6) Assessee denies liability to Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C etc. Prays to cancel the same.

7) Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds, submit additional evidence and / or during or pending proceeding.

Additional Ground Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Pune has erred is passing Order u/s

143(3) without having Pecuniary Jurisdiction.

Appellant prays to declare the said Order as bad in law being without Jurisdiction.”

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel referring to the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings on the ground that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not served upon the assessee within the statutory time limit provided under the Act and this being a fatal error, goes to the root cause, therefore, the assessment proceedings deserves to be quashed being bad in law, illegal and void ab-initio. Considering the legal issued raised by the assessee, we proceed to deal with the same and in case the legal issue about validly serving notice u/s.143(2) of the Act within the statutory time limit is decided against the assessee, then this appeal will be re-fixed for hearing the remaining legal issues as well grounds raised on merits for which due opportunity shall be granted to both the sides. Both the sides agreed and accordingly the parties proceeded ahead to argue the case on this legal issue of valid service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual declaring income from business, capital gain and from other sources. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 27.09.2013 declaring income of Rs.1,76,25,230/-. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2014 and in the assessment order it is mentioned that it has been served