TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,24,882/- made by the A.O u/s.69A of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case Id. CIT(A) was justified by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record, as the Id. CIT(A) has given the decision by accepting the submission of the assessee, a finding which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case Id. CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the A.O u/s.250(4) of the act, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,24,882/- made by the AO in the absence of enquiry on the additional submission for the assessee made during appellate proceedings?"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inable. 2. The cross objector reserves the right to add, amend, modify or alter any of the ground/s of cross objection." 3. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short "DR") assailing the grounds of appeal submitted that certain additional evidences had been relied upon by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC while providing relief to the assessee which were not as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the relief was granted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to the assessee on the ground that as per facts in this case that the assessee being proprietor of M/s. Reena Electronics has paid an amount of Rs. 2,51,24,882/- to M/s. Malhotra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted and dismissed being devoid of merits. 5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has given relief to the assessee as per Para 6.5.5 of its order which is extracted as follows: "6.5.5 The above discrepancies shows that the copy of account provided by the party itself to the Department at two different points of time is different significantly and there is a remarkable difference between the two accounts. The above discrepancies make it clearly evident that the information supplied was manipulated intentionally by the provider. It appears that the party Malhotra Electronics Private Limited manipulated the information provided by them to the Department as per its own convenience and to avoid any inconvenience at its end. It also appears that proba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, dated 08.12.2017 and that there was no order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act by the competent authority as regards the transfer of the case from ITO-1(4), Raipur to ITO- 3(4), Raipur. The Ld. Counsel submitted that without any order of transfer u/s.127 of the Act from the competent authority for assuming valid jurisdiction over the assessee, the reassessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act dated 08.12.2017 by the ITO, Ward-3(4), Raipur is without valid jurisdiction and therefore, invalid and bad-in-law. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in so far the report which was called for from the A.O regarding discrepancies of jurisdiction, the Assessing Officer i.e. ITO-1(1), Raipur vide his letter dated 08.01.2025 stated as follows: (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that where the assessee had participated in the proceedings pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer within 30 days from date on which he was served the notice, then Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer any further. 10. In our considered view, the main fact so far as the cross objection of the assessee is concerned is that as per the letter of the ITO-1(1), Raipur, dated 08.01.2025, it is stated that the order u/s.127 of the Act is not readily available in the assessment records, which therefore, creates a possibil....