TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 pertains to assessment year 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s 68 made on account of unexplained share capital received from 21 persons amounting to Rs.1,61,00,000/- Without appreciating the fact that neither the creditworthiness of these creditors nor the genuineness of transactions were established as submitted by the AO in Assessment Order and Remand Report. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the onus of the assessee is discharged without appreciating the judgeme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout prejudice to each other." 3. The grounds of cross objections raised by the assessee read as under :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order framed by Ld. AO on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the additions made by Ld. AO in the impugned order, more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search." 4. In the cross objections, assessee has raised jurisdictional issue vide g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not possible u/s 153A of the Act. However, this aspect was not dealt with by the ld. CIT (A). Hence, by way of cross objection ground no.2, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised this point. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that as it is evident from the orders of AO and ld. CIT (A), there is no whisper of incriminating material found during search. AO has made an adverse comment regarding share applicants money by only mentioning that he has noticed the same during assessment proceedings and in the said details, no incriminating material is mentioned to have been found during search. Ld. CIT (A)'s though deleted the addition on merit has also given a finding that no incriminating material was found during search. Para 8.9 of ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no incriminating material found. 9. Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not dispute that no incriminating material was found during search. However, he has tried to submit that the address of the assessee is at Noida, hence decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajkumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (All.) would apply. That in this case, it has been expounded that for assessment u/s 153A, incriminating material is not required. 10. However, in rejoinder, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO as well as ld. CIT (A) in this case is under New Delhi jurisdiction, as the case was centralized. Hence, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court would be applicable. 11. Upon careful consideratio....