TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appeal: "1. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred in making enhancement of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of amount received from M/s N Sarda & Associates Consultant Pvt Ltd holding the same as unexplained invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) by excerising powers under section 251(1) of the Act is invalid and without jurisdiction. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in making the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order passed by the learned AO under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eyes of law. 10. (i) 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 learned AO has erred, in reissuing the notice under section 153A dated 05.09.2019 despite the fact that reassessment proceedings initiated by initial notice issued under section 153A dated. 03.07.2018 was already pending and not concluded by the AO. (ii) That the learned AO has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that notice issued 142(1) of the Act is bad in law as the same was issued prior to the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the learned AO in drawing adverse inference against the appellant on the basis of above notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act which itself is invalid. 15. 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 learned AO has erred in making the addition in order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any of the grounds of appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the original return in this case was filed on 28.03.2016 declaring income of Rs. 3,24,930/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the various premises of Bajaj Group and its associates including the assessee and the directors and others. Consequent to search action in this case, notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") was manually issued on 03.07.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of his income within15 days of service of the notice. Thereafter, another notice is u/s 153A of the Act, was issued through ITBA portal on 05.09.2019 requiring the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. 6-7 of the Paper Book, no incriminating document / material was found. The Ld. AR submitted that Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2014-15, in the case of wife of assessee, Smt. Pushpa Bajaj vs. DCIT, New Delhi, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, holding that addition made in the absence of incriminating material found during search, which was carried out in the premises of Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Mr. Pradmod Bajaj, Mr. Radhey Shyam Bajaj and Mr. Krishna Kumar Bajaj, during the course of search key of IDBI Bank locker was found which was in the name of Shri Inder Chand Bajaj, the assessee and his wife Smt. Pushpa Bajaj. 9. It is also submitted that the addition in this case has been made in the hands of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2034 (4) TMI 1056-(Supreme Court) dated 24/04 2023, decided the issue in favour of the Assessee holding that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions to assessee's income in respect of completed/unabated assessment if no incriminating material has been found during the course of search u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Build Well (supra), we delete the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- made by the A.O. which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed." 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee for the year under consideration, filed return of income on 28.03.2016 and time limit prescribed to ....