https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784488 The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment for AY 2020-21 was validly framed under s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) because, besides the search triggering the s.153A notice, a subsequent authorization brought the year within the six-year block; the assessee's objection to treatment as a "regular" s.143(3) assessment was rejected. It further held that a transfer of jurisdiction under s.127(2) could not be assailed before the Tribunal and, in any event, no material showed the order to be legally unsustainable; the challenge failed. Additions under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE founded on material from a third party's premises were deleted, as such action required s.153C proceedings. However, cash found/seized at the assessee's premises was sustained by applying the s.292C presumption and lack of satisfactory explanation. en-us Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784488 The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment for AY 2020-21 was validly framed under s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) because, besides the search triggering the s.153A notice, a subsequent authorization brought the year within the six-year block; the assessee's objection to treatment as a "regular" s.143(3) assessment was rejected. It further held that a transfer of jurisdiction under s.127(2) could not be assailed before the Tribunal and, in any event, no material showed the order to be legally unsustainable; the challenge failed. Additions under s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE founded on material from a third party's premises were deleted, as such action required s.153C proceedings. However, cash found/seized at the assessee's premises was sustained by applying the s.292C presumption and lack of satisfactory explanation. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784488