9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Per Bench. 1. These four appeals filed by the Assessee are against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad dated 15.10.2009 for A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2006-07. 2. At the outset before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that though the four appeals are for different assessment years but the facts are identical and relates to the same issue except for the amounts and therefore all four appeals can be considered together. We therefore proceed to dispose off all the four appeals of the Assessee by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and thus proceed with the facts of case in IT(SS)A No. 554/Ahd/2010 (for A.Y. 2003-04). 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 4. A search action under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). CIT(A) vide order dated 15.10.2009 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under:- 6. Apart from this it can be noticed that the assessing officer of Pravinkumar Ratilal Share Broker was of the view that he had given hawala entries to different persons and in their record name of the appellant regarding transaction were noticed. The assessing officer was of the view that the noting and the accounts were related to Pravinkumar Ratilal Share Broker particularly in view of the fact that the appellant is not having major source of income. Hence, the assessment is made on protective basis in this case. This it self suggest that there was no satisfaction recorded by the A.O of Pravinkumar Ratilal Share broker regarding any unacc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the aforesaid ground with respect to jurisdiction. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On the basis of material on record we find that before CIT(A) Assessee had raised ground no. 1 with respect to jurisdiction of A.O which reads as under:- "The order under section 153C r.w.s. 154 of the I.T. Act dated 20.12.2007 passed by DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Ahmedabad is bad in law and is without jurisdiction. The order so passed therefore deserves to be quashed." 8. On perusing the order of CIT(A) we find that though the aforesaid ground was raised before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
