9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment. Hence, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the addition is not sustainable on jurisdiction ground. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi). 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the remand proceedings notices/summons were issued to all 21 share applicants but in case of 10 persons these notices/summons came back unserved and despite that the above 10 persons filed their replies/confirmations which established the fact that the above transactions were not genuine. 4. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 3. The grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee read as under :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction of share application money/share capital, hence he added the sum of Rs.1,61,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) dealt with merits of the case and decided the same in favour of the assessee. 7. The assessee has also raised a ground before the ld. CIT (A) vide ground no.4 that there is no incriminating material seized or found during the course of search, hence the addition was not possible u/s 153A of the Act. However, this aspect was not dealt with by the ld. CIT (A). Hence, by way of cross objection ground no.2, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised this point. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that as it is evident from the orders of AO and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The original return was duly filed in this case on 25.06.2006. Hence it is a completed assessment. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 173 (Del.) where it was expounded that no addition can be made u/s 153A in case of an unabated assessment de hors incriminating material found during search. Facts in the present case clearly show that there was no incriminating material found. 9. Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not dispute that no incriminating material was found during search. However, he has tried to submit that the address of the assessee is at Noida, hence decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
