TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "Ground No.1: "The order under appeal is bad in law as the same has been passed disallowing claim of exemption of Rs. 80.59.224/- u/s 10(38) of IT Act on long term capital gain on the premise that other investors in the Yamini Investment Co Ltd had indulged in claiming ingenuine LTCG arising out of price manipulation in the above scrip in question. Ground No.2: "The authorities below have erred in law in making/confirming the addition of Rs. 4.13.374/- u/s 69C of IT Act on assumption of making payment of commission on alleged arrangement of above bogus long term capital gain." Additional Ground No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the unamended act issued after 31.03.2021 is invalid in view of decision of Monmohan Kohli." Additional Ground No.5: "The impugned addition of Rs. 80,59,224/- treating the sale realization from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act is unsustainable in law as such unexplained credits are outside the ambit of sec 68 of IT Act. Such illegality in invoking wrong section for making addition to income is a jurisdictional error which is incurable u/s 292BB of IT Act." 3. The assessee filed her return of income on 21.03.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 43,62,210/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at returned income. Subsequently, on the basis of Search conducted at Yamini Investments Co. Ltd. under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was not a valid return. In this regard he has drawn our attention to pages 111-113, para 16 of the Paper Book filed before us, being the notice under Section 142(1) dated 08.03.2022, issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the return filed by the assessee against the notice u/s 148 of the Act was belated and invalid and therefore assessee was directed to show cause as to why the case of the assessee should not be concluded as per the provisions of Section 144 of the Act. 6. The case of the assessee before us is that assessee has duly filed her return of income in response to notice issued under Section 148 on 15.07.2021 appearing at pages 32-36 of the Paper book which was furnished to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inancial Telecommunications (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del) 7. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Dart Infrabuild P Ltd 118 CCH 0174 (Del) was further relied upon. Relying on the ratio laid down to this effect by that Court that the view of the AO that since return of income was invalid being filed beyond the time limit prescribed as per the notice under Section 148 of the Act is devoid of any merit because of issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory even if return of income is filed belatedly in response to the notice under Section 148 which is not a curable defect under Section 292 BB of the Act. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials a....