9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. 3. The following are the grounds taken by the Department: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing a relief of Rs. 27,79,182/- which has been added on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) of the IT Act, in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of assessment proceeding before the AO. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,50,000/- made by the AO, on account of unexplained credit, in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in "Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-III) v. Kabul Chawla", 380 ITR 573 (Del) as regards the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act require reconsideration, particularly in the light of a later decision of the coordinate Bench of the High Court in "Smt. Dayawanti Gupta v. CIT", 390 ITR 496 (Del). The Revenue's submission was that the invocation of Section 153A of the Act to re-open concluded assessments of the AYs. earlier to the year of search is justified even in the absence of incriminating material found during the search qua each such earlier AY. 7. The facts in "Meeta Gutgutia" (supra) were that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking section 153A of the Act against the assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that no incriminating material / evidence was found in the search qua the year under consideration. 10. The assessee is a resident of Gwalior in M.P. The impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A), Gwalior. Therefore, neither "Meeta Gutgutia" (supra), by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, nor "Kesarwani" (supra) by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, is by the Jurisdictional High Court qua the assessee. Now, it is well settled that where on an issue there are divergent opinions of different High Courts, which are nonjurisdictional High Courts so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
