Khirod Kumar Pattnaik, Angul vs ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

This income tax appeal concerns the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee, Kshirod Kumar Pattnaik, argues that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) lacked jurisdiction to assess his case due to a declared income exceeding £15 lakh, citing CBDT Instruction No.1/2011. Furthermore, the assessee contests the confirmation of a £1,05,00,000 addition for unexplained fixed deposit investments, asserting that relevant documents were ignored.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM

(Through : Virtual Hearing)
ITA No.380/CTK/2019

Assessment Year :2012-2013)
Kshirod Kumar Pattnaik,
Gandhimarg, Amalapada,
Angul-759122
PAN No. : AHXPP 0122 E
Appellant)

Vs.

ITO, Angul Ward, Angul
Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri G.Naik/Rajat Kar, ARs
Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta,DR
Date of Hearing : 06/11/2020
Date of Pronouncement : 10/12/2020

O R D E R

Per L.P.Sahu, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.09.2019, passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2012-2013, on the following grounds of appeal :- 

6. For that order u/s-250 of the IT Act, Dt. 06.09.2019 as passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar hereinafter referred to as the learned CIT(A) is far from just and legal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to reject the claim of the appellant to the effect that considering the returned income of the appellant the Ld. AO has no jurisdiction to assess the appellant as such the entire proceeding is vitiated and not sustainable in the eyes of law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. who is an Income Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to assess the case of the appellant having declared income more than Rs.15 lacs in the impugned year now under appeal in view of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to confirm the addition of Rs.1,05,00,000/- towards un-explained investment in fixed deposits as made by the Ld. A.O ignoring the relevant documents/papers submitted before him on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

To know more in details find the attachment file