TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO in the absence of any valid notice issued under section 148 is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad and liable to be quashed as the same is barred by limitation. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reopening of the assessment proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e have been made without assumption of valid jurisdiction. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO without obtaining approval of the prescribed authority under the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,79,684/- on account of credit entries in the bank account treating the same as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ld. Sr. DR, opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Apropos to Ground Nos. 1 to 9, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has a very strong case on merits. He therefore, submitted that he would rest his arguments on merit alone and does not wish to press grounds related to legality of assessment. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below failed to give set off of business loss of Rs.50,33,473/- if the loss was allowed, there would not be any addition. He submitted that even before Ld. CIT(A), it was stated that the return was filed at business loss of Rs.50,33,473/-. He submitted that the AO erred in not allowing set off of loss of Rs.50,33,473/- chargeable under h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in securities with Kotak Securities Ltd. - The assessee invested the amount from the income earned in the previous Assessment Year from a long term capital gain of Rs.12,75,266/- - Further the assessee also taken a short term loan of Rs.33,94,009/- 6. Further the assessee also submitted complete bank ledgers along with supporting documents and ledgers explaining the credit entries appearing in the bank ledgers in the books of the assessee which are placed at PB Pg. 51-54 &Pg 83. 7. However, the AO did not consider the same and added Rs.38,79,684/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained credit entries in the bank account of the assessee. 8. It is relevant to note that the AO did not consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for that assessment year under any other head, if the net result is still a loss, the assessee can set off the said loss under section 71 of the Act against income of the same year under any other head, except for losses, which arises under head "Capital Gains". 14. We may also mention that restriction on the 'set off' of losses against the income brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act has been provided under section 115BBE of the Act via the amendment in the Finance Act 2016. Further, this amendment is prospective in nature. Hence, in the absence of such restrictions during the year under consideration i.e. AY 2011-12, the AO may 'set off' of losses against income assessed under section 68 of the Act. 15. In th....