2023 (10) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. Both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds of appeal: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee not appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not on the seized documents and Circular No. 24 of the CBDT is not applicable. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the issue on merits of the case.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the aggregate addition of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of share application money received by the assessee company as the assessee company has discharged its onus as per section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, more so when there was no incriminating material found as a result of search qua this issue. 4. The assessee has also raised following additional ground in its cross-objections: "1. That haMng 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 on the ground that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C for framing the impugned as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xmann.com 155 (SC). Learned counsel submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2014 is without jurisdiction and bad in law. He contended that the assessment year in question i.e. 2006-07 is beyond the block period in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 0612, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh (supra). Learned counsel drew our attention to the assessment order to demonstrate that the seized documents were received in this Circle on 13.8.2013. He submitted that as per para 2 of the impugned assessment order it is stated by the AO that the assessment year in question fall within six assessment years imm....