2012 (11) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atistical purposes. - I.T.(S.S.)A. No 650/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2012 - Shri A. K. Garodia, And Shri Kul Bharat, JJ. Revenue by : Shri D.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER : KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III Ahmedabad dated 23-09-2011. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Additional Ground No. 1A contesting the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 153-C of the Act. 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Additional Ground No. 1B contesting the assumption of jurisdiction to review without any valid reas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w. 1B. The learned AO has also erred in assuming jurisdiction to review the assessment that had become final, without any valid reasons and the assessment so made being void ab initio, is liable to be annulled. 1C. It is therefore prayed that the proceedings u/s. 153C may be quashed and the assessment may be annulled. 3. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without adjudicating the additional ground. 4. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the additional grounds as raised by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) were not disposed of in accordance with law. On the last date of hearing on 05-06-2012, the hearing of appeal was adjourned at the request of Ld. A.R. for the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntiate the basis of the additional ground raised by them. If the appellant has to substantiate the basis of the additional ground raised by them. If the appellant knowingly raises an additional ground, the facts of which are deliberately mentioned as incorrect, then in my opinion not only such additional ground are liable to be rejected at face but also the appellants should be penalized for raising such additional grounds. In this case, since the appellants have not been able to substantiate the factual position mentioned in the additional ground such as copy of the panchnama prepared at the time of search of their husbands to show that not a single item of jewellery, valuables or documents belonging to them have been seized, I have no hes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X