2026 (3) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r referred to as "the Act") vide order dated 1.3.2021. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 77,70,091/- u/s. 69 of the Act. ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in following the CBDT's instruction no. 1916, despite the fact that the said instruction is applicable for non-seizure of jewellery during search action and it does not mention that non-seized jewellery is explained? iii) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in benefit of CBDT instruction no. 1916 to the assessee in respect of all family as well as extended fam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without jurisdiction. Hence, the assessment order dated 1.3.2021 is illegal, without jurisdiction in the absence of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the orders of the authorities below on this issue. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that in the assessment proceedings u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for AY 2019-20, the AO claimed to have issued a notice u/s. 143(2) dated 30.9.2020, a copy of the same is place at page no. 101 of the assessee's paper book. However, as per the record, the jurisdiction over the case was transferred to DCIT, Central Circle-31, New Delhi only on 15.10.2020, vide order u/s. 127 of the Act which was communicated to the assessee o....