IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt Santosh Devi v. Income Tax Officer-3(3)

Azad Nagar, Madhoganuj, Hardoi-241001.

Hardoi-241001.

PAN:APDPD4175R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Saxena, CA Respondent by: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl.

CIT(DR)

O R D E R

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.:

A. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly [hereinafter referred as the Ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 17.08.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: -

“1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in not cancelling the re-assessment as the notice of re- assessment had been issued by the ITO-3(3), Hardoi-2 without jurisdiction. 2. That the assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961, its continuation and culmination vide order dated 30.12.2016 is bad in law and cancelled.

3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in respect of cash deposits of Rs.14,80,000/- in S/b account treating as unexplained.

4. The appellant reserve a right to add/alter/amend any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.”

B. In this case, the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.15,42,040/- (and net Agricultural income of Rs.15,000/- for rate purpose). As per the return of income, the assessee’s total income was stated to be Rs.62,040/-, in addition to, net agricultural income stated to be Rs.15,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.14,80,000/- was made on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in the bank account. The assessee filed appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid assessment order on the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in cancelling the re-assessment as the notice of re- assessment had been issued by the ITO-3(3), Hardoi-2 without jurisdiction. 2. That the assumption of jurisdiction for re-assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961, its continuation and culmination vide order dated 30.12.2016 is bad in law and cancelled.

3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in respect of cash deposits of Rs.14,80,000/- in S/b account treating as unexplained.

4. The appellant reserve a right to add/alter/amend any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.”

B.1. Vide impugned appellate order dated 17.08.2017, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. As regards the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 of appeal filed in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the issue, holding that the jurisdictional matters are not subject matter of appeal. The present appeal before us was filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 17.08.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 03.08.2018 of the Co-ordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, the issue regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.14,80,000/- was set aside, on merits of the addition, to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh, after providing reasonable an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the aforesaid order dated 03.08.2018 of Co- ordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, it was held that the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was not pressed by the Ld. AR for the assessee. However, vide subse