AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee had reasonable cause. The delay of two days is condoned. Apppeals are taken up for hearing. 4. First, we take up I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-01 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessment made u/s 153A/144 was valid, which was made pursuant to the notice u/s 143(2) served after prescribed time limit. The assessment order be kindly quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order, which was passed by the AO without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The same be kindly cancelled. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in charging Rs. 60,000/- from the five concerns of the same name and in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,000/- towards the same. 6. Briefly stated, facts are that a search & survey operation u/s 132k was carried out in the Madhur Group of cases and warrant of authorization u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2016 - A.Y. 2001-02 : 11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessment made u/s 153A/144 was valid, which was made pursuant to the notice u/s 143(2) served after prescribed time limit. The assessment order be kindly quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order, which was passed by the AO without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The same be kindly cancelled. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in charging Rs. 1,92,000/- from sixteen concerns of the same name and in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,92,000/- towards the same. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards the fresh security deposits from the concerns of the same name, which were appearing in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139(1) and in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Rs. 50,000/- appearing in the account books was unexplainable and in confirming the addition towards the same at Rs. 1,05,000/- u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 16. Facts are identical in this appeal as in I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 for assessment year 2000-01. The Ld. Departmental Representative vide his letter dated 26.06.2018 has categorically mentioned that the additions are not based upon any incriminating material. 17. Following the same reasoning as in para 9 above, we delete the additions and allow grounds no. 1 to 6. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 is allowed. I.T.(SS)A.No. 189/Ind/2016 - A.2003-04: 19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the assessment made u/s 153A/144 was valid, which was made pursuant to the notice u/s 143(2) served after prescribed time limit. The assessment order be kindly quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment order, which was passed by the AO without providing ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y deposits from the concerns of the same name, which were appearing in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139(1) and in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,000/- towards the same. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the AO of examining the credit of Rs. 60,000/- in the final accounts filed with the return u/s 139 in the proceedings u/s 153A. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding that the unsecured loan of Rs. 90,000/- in the names of Deepa Kotwani at Rs. 40,000/- and Sadhumal Laxmandas at Rs. 50,000/- appearing in the account books was unexplainable and in confirming the addition towards the same at Rs. 90,000/- u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 24. Facts are identical in this appeal as in I.T.(SS)A.No. 186/Ind/2016 for assessment year 2000-01. The Ld. Departmental Representative vide his letter dated 26.06.2018 has categorically mentioned that the additions are not based upon any incriminating material. 25. Following the same reasoning as in para 9 above, we delete the additions and allow grounds no. 1 to 6. ....