IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.226/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2012-13 Nisha Fazal Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(3), 6181, 8^th Floor, Alok Vihar-II, Kanpur.

F-6, Sector-50, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar-201301 PAN:AACPF0740Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

O R D E R

PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M.

This appeal vide I.T.A. No.226/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 05/01/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059394364(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short]. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to know about the facts and circumstances of the case, and has arbitrarily given the decision thereof is bad in law and liable to set aside.

2. Because, the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, has without consider the reply and submissions and passed the order stated with that the appellant has failed to reply and submissions, hence it is not correct and bad in law.

3. Because, the Notice issued u/s 148 dated 31/03/2019 that is last day of six years, but the service of notice is 14/05/2019, that is after expiry of six years and service of notice u/s 148 of IT Act,1961 is beyond the time lime limit than therefore, the reopening of case is invalid and bad in law.

4. Because, the reasons recorded by the ld. ITO-1(5) and obtained approval Pr. CIT-1, at Kanpur and issued notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2019, and income tax department transferred the PAN jurisdiction is ITO-4(3), at Kanpur dated 19/08/2019, and ld. AO-4(3), initiate proceedings in same reasons to believe priorly and passed assessment order then therefore, assessment proceeding done by ld. ITO -4(3), without using our own mind and she is prejuris of the case hence therefore the entire assessment is nullity and bad in law.

5. Because, the ld. AO-1(5), has recording the reasons u/s 147 and issuing notice 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction bad in law then therefore, have to be annulled.

6. Because, the necessary compliance having being made in response to notices issued u/s 142(1) there was no reason to exparte.

7. Because, the AO has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has arbitrarily made in addition of Rs.74,76,1 80/- is bad in law.

8. Because, the ld. AO has make a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act,1961 after compliance done within time limit through official E-mail at kanpur.ito2.1.3@incometax.gov.in dated 25/11/2019 but she was not considered the same, then therefore is bad in law.

9. Because, the ld. AO knowingly issued notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act, and sending through speed post and fixing the hearing date is too short after knowing the appellant belongs to more than 400 K.M's, that is bad in law and could not give proper opportunity of being heard then therefore the order passed by ld. AO is annulled.

10. Because, the ld. AO has erred the facts and in law in order passed by the AO is change of opinion hence therefore the addition made illegally.

11. Because, the notice u/s 1 48 of the Income Tax was not received by the appellant and assessment order passed by the ld. AO is invalid.”

2. The assessee has also filed revised/amended grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as under:

“1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to know about the facts;

circumstances and without considering the case reply, and has arbitrarily give the decision thereof is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

2. Because the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by ld. ITO-1(5), Kanpur with approval obtained from ld. Pr. CIT-1, Kanpur is without jurisdiction hence it is bad in law.

3. Because the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, served dated 14.05.2019 that is after expiry of six years hence