9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n months from completion of the assessment in the case of searched person which was completed in the month of December, 2019 and not immediately thereafter, as required by the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Calcutta Knitwears, [2014] 43 taxmann.com 446 (SC) and CBDT Circular No 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015, the Id CIT(A)-24, New Delhi was wrong in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction us 153C of the Act. 2. Where the Id DCIT, CC-7, New Delhi passed the assessment order u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2021 manually, without mentioning DIN in the body of the assessment order and also not in conformity with the manner prescribed in CBDT Circular No 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, the Id. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) CIT(A)-24, New Delhi was wrong in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- as the amount of peak of unexplained cash as unexplained money us 69A of the Act. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi was wrong in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,85,061/- made by assuming the profit at Rs. 3,85,061/- from alleged undisclosed cash purchases of gold from JBL as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. The ld. Assessee Representative (AR) drawing our attention towards copy of assessment order dated 30.12.2021 passed u/s. 153C/143(3) of the I.T Act 1961 (for short the 'Act') submitted that there is no document identification number (DIN) in the order therefore in view of recent judgement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have DIN number indicated on the face of the order and the orders passed without DIN number in violation of said circular are nonest in the eyes of law. Said order of ITAT Kolkata has been upheld by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta rendering judgment dated 26.09.2023 (supra), wherein it was held thus:- We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Akshara Shukla, learned Advocate, for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the DIN was mentioned in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. The learned Tribunal upon examining the facts held that the order does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justifying as to how the non compliance of the CBDT Circular dated 14* August, 2019, which was noted by the Tribunal when it passed the main order. The Tribunal notes that this specific query was unable to be answered by the revenue and therefore the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed under Section 263 does not satisfy the requirement mandated by the CBDT Circular. Thus, we find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. Accordingly, in view of foregoing discussion we are inclined to hold that the assessment order without DIN number and without any mention regarding non generation of DIN number in the body of assessment order is not a curab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
