9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts and therefore all four appeals can be considered together. We therefore proceed to dispose off all the four appeals of the Assessee by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience and thus proceed with the facts of case in IT(SS)A No. 554/Ahd/2010 (for A.Y. 2003-04). 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 4. A search action under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the group cases of M/s. Pravin Ratilal Sharedalal on 22.09.2005 where certain documents and computer data pertaining to the Assessee was found which revealed that Assessee had entered into large scale transaction of giving hawala profits to desirous persons through M/s. Pravin Ratilal Share and Stock Brokers Ltd. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer was of the view that the noting and the accounts were related to Pravinkumar Ratilal Share Broker particularly in view of the fact that the appellant is not having major source of income. Hence, the assessment is made on protective basis in this case. This it self suggest that there was no satisfaction recorded by the A.O of Pravinkumar Ratilal Share broker regarding any unaccounted income of the appellant which could enable the A.O to issue of notice u/s 153C of the Act. Hence in the absence of any such specific satisfaction the initiation of proceedings in this case u/s 153C is bad in law. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The assessment order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich reads as under:- "The order under section 153C r.w.s. 154 of the I.T. Act dated 20.12.2007 passed by DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Ahmedabad is bad in law and is without jurisdiction. The order so passed therefore deserves to be quashed." 8. On perusing the order of CIT(A) we find that though the aforesaid ground was raised before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not adjudicated it as there is no finding of CIT(A) on the same. We are therefore of the view that the aforesaid ground needs to be adjudicated by CIT(A). We therefore remit back the ground to the file of CIT(A) to decide the ground afresh after recording a clear finding and by passing a speaking order. Since the ground of jurisdiction has been remitted to the file of CIT(A), the other are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
