TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is contrary to law, facts, evidence on record and circumstances of the case and opposed to fair procedure and principles of legitimate expectation. 2. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that AO lacks jurisdiction and consent cannot confer jurisdiction and also erred in taking up the case for scrutiny the norms and the AO had not made any detailed enquiry and assumed the "jurisdictional fact" erroneously without any materials. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the sum of Rs. 10,40,000/-in the previous year relevant to the Asst year 2005-06 without considering the source for the investment and without giving opport....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Smt.Jayanthi Krishnamurthy. She passed away on 07.07.2015 leaving behind her son Late K.Thendral Kumar. Further, Mr.K.Thendral Kumar died on 18.03.2017 and present legal heir became heir to the assessee and she came to know about pending Income Tax proceedings through the Counsel representing the case before the authorities. She had taken steps to file appeal and in the process, there was a delay of 352 days, but such delay is neither intentional nor for want of any undue benefit but beyond the situation which arose because of death of the assessee and her son, and thus, requested to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 3.1 The Ld.DR present for the Revenue fairly agreed that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... towards unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld.AR for the assessee, at the time of hearing, referring to 'memorandum of additional grounds of appeal' filed by the assessee submits that the assessee has taken a legal ground challenging validity of additions made towards unexplained cash credit in the assessment framed u/s. 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search in light of decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia reported in [2017] 395 ITR 526 (Del.). The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submits that additional grounds taken by the assessee, is purely legal ground which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch was taken place on 16.05.2007, whereas, the due date for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, has been expired on 31.07.2006 i.e. much before the date of search on 16.05.2007. Since the assessment is unabated, no addition can be made in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search. If you go through the additions made by the AO towards capital introduced in Dragon Movies, such addition has been made on the basis of regular return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore, additions made by the AO is unsustainable in law and needs to be deleted. In this regard, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal ....