https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179871 The CIT (A) held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment based on the original return and deleted the additions made, including an addition of &8377; 1,03,71,149 on unexplained investments. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal on jurisdictional grounds and not addressing the appeal on merits. The Tribunal also dismissed the challenge to the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A due to the defective appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in tax assessments and the need for proper consideration of revised returns and evidence in tax matters. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179871 The CIT (A) held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment based on the original return and deleted the additions made, including an addition of &8377; 1,03,71,149 on unexplained investments. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal on jurisdictional grounds and not addressing the appeal on merits. The Tribunal also dismissed the challenge to the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A due to the defective appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in tax assessments and the need for proper consideration of revised returns and evidence in tax matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179871