TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant BY : Shri A.K. Srivastava, CA Respondent by : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the instance of the revenue, is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi dated 15.03.2013. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. 2. The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income on 30.07.2009, declaring income at ₹ 2,95,400/-. On noticing inadvertent mistake in the return, the assessee revised the return on 13.07.2010 by filing a revised return, declaring income at ₹ 41,31,510/- and claimed a refund of ₹ 25,892/-. The return filed on 30.07.2009 was selected fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that submissions be made on merits and also directed that evidences in support of the assessee's contention be filed, to enable him to carry out investigation himself. In compliance with the directions of the ld. CIT (A), evidences in support were filed by the assessee vide letter dated 01.03.2013 giving complete details of investments in units of Mutual Funds duly supported with copies of statements issued by Mutual Funds and Bank Statements of the assessee and her husband and son. Copies of acknowledgments of their Income Tax returns were also filed. The ld. CIT (A), accepting the assessee s contentions, held that the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment on the basis of the original return and ignor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the AIR have been made by the assessee and her family members. Investments to the extent of ₹ 42,21,149/- only have been made by the assessee. The balance investments have been made by her family members and her name appears only as joint holder. Source of all investments have been duly explained from the bank statements. Even on merits no addition ₹ 1,03,71,149/- is called for and has to be deleted. In view of the above, we hold that the revenue s appeal is defective as the revenue has not come up in appeal on the issue of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on this issue itself. As we have already dismissed the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction, hence we are not adjudicating the appeal on merits. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
