TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) Et (c) of the Act; . ii.That the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior information or material inducing any belief but purely on the suspicion and therefore, the action under section 132(2) is bad in law [ 224 ITR 19 (SC) ] and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-inito on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. iii.The learned authorities below has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) Et (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. 3.The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. 4.The order passed by the authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. iii. The learned authorities below has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) a (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. 3.The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. 4.The order passed by the authorities below is bad in law as the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.Without prejudice to the above legal contentions the appellant denies itself liable to be assessed over and above the income retuned of Rs. 1,49,032/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.The Authorities below are not ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parity of reasons of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer & Others reported in 259 ITR 19 and Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT & Another reported in 289 ITR 341. 3.The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. The issue of notice under section 153C of the Act on an illegal search is bad in law and consequently all proceedings based on such illegal search do not have any legs to stand and requires to be cancelled. 4.The order passed by the authorities below is bad in law as the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice to the above legal contentions the appellant denies herself liable to be assessed over and above the income retuned of Rs. 79,896/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.The learned commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. The issue of notice under section 153C of the Act on an illegal search is bad in law and consequently all proceedings based on such illegal search do not have any legs to stand and requires to be cancelled. 4.The order passed by the authorities below is bad in law as the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing which is against the principles of natural justice under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reference to the District Valuation Officer is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.The authorities below failed to appreciate that the method of valuation adopted by the valuation officer is not in accordance with law and hence the addition is bad in law. The determination of the value based on plinth area method is wrong and erroneous and further the area considered by the valuation offi....