9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue for the additions made on account of Unexplained share capital of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- and Unexplained cash credit of Rs. 14,01,765/-? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law allowing the cross objection filed by the assessee? (iii) Whether the ITAT relied upon inadmissible evidence as the procedure adopted by CIT (A) allowing the additional evidence is against the well defined procedure engrafted in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble ITAT was le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and circumstances which are contrary to record? 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 17.9.2008 in Kamdhenu Group of cases including M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee herein). A notice dated 22.1.2010 under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee who filed its return on 30.3.2010 for the assessment year 2003-04 declaring the total income at Rs. 1,22,320/-. Thereafter, notice dated 7.5.2010 under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act along with a questionnaire were issued to the assessee who filed reply to the same. The assessment order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure- 1) under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon v. M/s Parabolic Drugs Ltd. ITA No. 49 of 2012 decided on 11.10.2012 following its earlier Division Bench judgment in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/s Motorola India Ltd. ITA No. 44 of 2005 decided on 3.10.2007 had held that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal when the order passed by the assessing authority was at Delhi. It was recorded as under:- "8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed by holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. Consequently, the appeal is returned to the Revenue for filing before the competent Court of jurisdiction in accordance with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
