9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown as ₹ 41,31,510/- which was more than ₹ 10 lakhs, the monetary limit placed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT"). Held that:- Revenue's Appeal was defective since the finding of the CIT(A) on the lack of jurisdiction was not challenged by it. - ITA No. 153/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Zoheb Hossain, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct on 20th August, 2010. Since no reply was filed against the said notice, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) passed the assessment order dated 29th December, 2011 making an addition of ₹ 1,03,71,149/- and ₹ 1,00,000/-. 4. The matter was taken in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ]. One of the grounds urged before the CIT(A) was that the AO had no jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the merits of the addition made by the AO, the Revenue did not challenge the finding of the CIT(A) that the AO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the original assessment. This was pointed out to the ITAT by the Assessee leading to the ITAT to hold in the impugned order that the Revenue's Appeal was defective since the finding of the CIT(A) on the lac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
