9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete asstt. proceedings are non-est and without jurisdiction for the reason that No mandatory DIN is mentioned in the notice u/s. 143(2) Dtd.13.04.21 and also no reason for non-quoting of DIN is mentioned, which is the only notice under this section and the DIN thereof has been issued on 18.08.21 i.e. after more than 04 months, against, at the most, was required within 15 working days w.e.f. 13.04.21, hence in view of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 Dtd.14.08.19 as further so held by Hon'ble Delhi H.C in the case of CIT (IT-1) Vs Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. in ITA No.163/2023, Order Dtd.20.03.23, the notice Dtd.13.04.21 is illegal, non-est and deemed as never has been issued, consequently all subsequent proceedings becomes without jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained jewellery at Rs. 12,93,307/- is erroneous and excessive against correctly as Rs. 11,23,600/-." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out in Sh. KshitijLal Group cases. A search warrant of authorization u/s 132 of the Act was issued in the name of the Assessee on 03/04/2019. The Assessee had furnished her return of income u/s 139 of the Act declaring income of Rs. 6,77,886/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act since the search was initiated in the year under consideration being search year. An assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act came to be passed by making an addition of Rs. 12,93,30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l further submitted that the silver of 85.5 gram has been valued at gold rates, which ultimately resulted in making excess and erroneous addition of Rs. 1,69,697/-, thus, Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that regarding the jewellery of 350 grams of late Vimla Devi, the Assessee has not given any explanation before the A.O. The husband of Vimla Devi i.e. Sh. S. S. Lal filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) which is contrary to the stand taken by him before the A.O. and contended that in the affidavit filed before the A.O. by Shri S. S. Lal on his behalf stated that he has gifted 300 grams on behalf of himself and his spouse and again contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the donor and the Assessee in mind and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the claim of the Assessee regarding 350 grams jewellery without appreciating the facts narrated in the affidavit. 8. In respect of the gold jewellery of 27.9 grams are concerned, the same has been valued at Rs. 82,703/-. Considering the statues of the family, which is admittedly been searched, the authorities below have committed error in doubting the same. In any case, the said 27.900 grams could have been accepted as 'Stridhana'. Regarding the silver jewelry of 85.5 grams are concerned, as per the valuation the same is valued at Rs. 3,420/-, however, the A.O. committed error in val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
