TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnoring that AO has assumed the jurisdiction of 147 on the basis of alleged incriminating documents found in search of third party. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in affirming the jurisdiction of AO ignoring that provisions of section 153C ought to have been applied by the revenue instead of 147, as the former provisions are non-obstantive provisions and exclude the operations of section 147 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above the CIT (A) has erred in affirming the jurisdiction of the AO under section 147 ignoring that the AO has solely relied on the findings of investigation wing and there was no live link between the reasons recorded and belief entertained by the AO for assuming the jurisdiction of 147 of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... search of 3rd party which would show that the alleged money taxed by the AO under section 68 is actually emanated from the coffers of assessee. 11. The CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that nothing has been found in search of party which would prove that the confirmation filed by the directors of the share subscriber companies is contrary to the records of proceedings. 12. The CIT (A ) has further erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act, ignoring that there is no evidence unearthed during the course of search of third party to corroborate this notional addition. 13. The assessee craves leave to add alter modify and ground of appeal at the time of hearing of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esponse to the same, assessee filed a letter dated 06.4.2016 wherein it was submitted that the original return filed earlier may be treated as returned filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire to the assessee. In response to the same, assessee appeared and filed required documentary evidences and answer the query raised by the AO, but the AO did not agree with the explanation given by the assessee and finally made the addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 25 lacs as discussed in para 15 of the assessment order and completed the assessment at Rs. 28,23,720/- u/s. 147/148 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 15.12.2016. Agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same ratio, the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the ground raised by the assessee. He has also filed the written submissions on legal as well as merits with supporting various decisions rendered by various Courts. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records and gone through the issue raised by the assessee in grounds of appeal alongwith orders passed by the revenue authorities especially the impugned order. No doubt that Ld. Counsel for the assessee has argued on the issue in ground no. 3 and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the jurisdiction of the AO that the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, provisions of sec. 153C were applicable which excludes the application of sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The ITAT held the notice issued under sec. 148 and proceedings under sec. 147 as illegal and void ab initio. It was held that Assessing Officer having not followed procedure under sec. 153C, reassessment order was rightly quashed by the Learned CIT(Appeals). I also draw my support from the ITAT, New Delhi decision in the case of Rajat Shubra Chatterji vs. ACIT, New Delhi ITA No. 2430/Del/2015 dated 20.5.2016, wherein the reassessment was quashed on the similar facts and circumstances by following the ITAT, Amritsar decision in the case of ITO vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor (supra). In the present case before me, it is an admitted fact....