IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, vs. Income Tax Officer, PAA-1N/:7 B3A, VCiPraSm74 K8h3aJn d, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A.

Revenue by: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR Date of hearing: 03.0 6.2025 Date of pronouncement: O2 4R.0 D7 .E2 0R2 5 PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

[

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-

Lucknow dated 4.08.2020, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ITO-1(3), Lucknow, passed under section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act. The grounds “o1f. aTphep eLaela arnreed a sC IuTn(Ad)e, rh:-a s erred in law, in confirming order u/s 147/144 of the

1.T. Act, 1961 in the present case as the notice issued u/s 148 by the Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (here-in after referred to as the ITO, Bareilly) was issued without any jurisdiction and thus as the notice so issued u/s 148 itself is issued without jurisdiction the culmination of the same in the present order is void-ab-

initio and bad-in-law and thus the order may kindly be annulled.

II. On the fact and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case the reasons so recorded by the ITO, Bareilly itself are vitiated as the appellant had made a true and fair disclosure and that the investment so made cannot be disclosed in the Return so filed and further as per the reasons recorded the income escaping assessment is of Rs.65,73,000/- and whereas the addition towards purchase has been made of Rs.16,92,000/- only and thus the addition is devoid of any merit and needs to be quashed.

Without Prejudice to Grounds Nos. I and II above:

III. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.11,92,000/- as alleged undisclosed investment in purchase of property whereas in fact the purchase has been made from out of known and disclosed sources of income available with the appellant at that time and thus the addition made without any basis only on whims and fancies, on a wholly misconstrued fact may kindly be ordered to be deleted.

IV. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not afford the appellant any proper or sufficient opportunity to have her say or make necessary compliance of the reasons relied upon by him in passing the present order and thus the order passed without affording adequate opportunity may kindly be ordered to be quashed.

V. That in any case and in any view of the matter, impugned addition/allowance assessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed.

VI. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other and further grounds of appeal with permission.”

2. The facts of the case are, that it came to the knowledge of the Department through an AIR information, that the assessee had purchased a residential land of 4150 Square Meter in Mohalla Jogiyan, Bareilly for Rs.11,42,500/-. The assessee did not mention the PAN on the purchase deed and the address given by the assessee on the purchase deed was E-1011 Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly present address Munsi Nagar Colony, Pilibhit Byepass Road, Bareilly. On the basis of this information, the ITO-2(1) issued a verification letter on 18.07.2014. When reply was not received, a notice under section 148 was issued on 23.03.2015 and was served on the assessee through his mother-in-law. No return was filed in response to this notice under section 148. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) was issued, which was also not complied with. Thereafter, the ITO-2(1) transferred the case to ITO-1(3), Lucknow informing the ITO that the second address of the as