TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the appeals relating to protective assessments. - IT(SS)A Nos.99 to 101/Ind/2016 And ITANo.1044/Ind/2016, CO No.25/Ind/2017 (Arising out of ITANo.1044/Ind/2016) - - - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - IT(SS)A Nos.104 to 106/Ind/2016 And CO No.26/Ind/2017 (Arising out of ITANo.1045/Ind/2016), ITANos.451 to 453/Ind/2018, CO Nos.39 to 41/Ind/2019 (Arising out of ITANos.451 to 453/Ind/2018), ITANo.399/Ind/2018, ITANo.448/Ind/2018, CO No.38/Ind/2019 (Arising out of ITANo.448/Ind/2018) Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Sumit Nema, Shri Manjit Sachdeva ARs For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Mantri CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH : This bunch of 19 appeals by the assessee(s) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of unexplained receipt on protective basis without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during the assessment proceedings. ITANo.1044 1045/Ind/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13(Pankaj Kalani Dipak Kalani): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee by deleting the additions of ₹ 10,22,882/- by admitting additional documentary evidences without calling remand report. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 27,19,608/- made as unexplained investment as assessee has failed to explain the source of jewellery. 3. On the facts and in the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case the Ld6 Assessing officer erred in maintaining the additional income as offered by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 62,50,000/- whereas correct amount of income calculated comes to ₹ 33,89,582/ - only. 2] The assessee reserves his right to add, alter and modify the ground of appeal. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANos.451 to 453/Ind/2018 (Kalani Industries P. Ltd): 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A} has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,48,16,000/- made on the basis on concrete material evidences seized during the course of the search inventorised in LPS-10 and LPS-11? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A} has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the director of the assessee company. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, deduct from or otherwise amend the above grounds of appeal. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in CONos.39 to 41/Ind/2019(Kalani Industries P. Ltd.): 1.That the Ld CIT (A) erred both in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. 2.That the Ld CIT (AJ failed to appreciate that reassessment was initiated pursuant to search and seizure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the grounds of appeal. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANos.448/Ind/2018 ( M/s Flexituff International Ltd.): 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT- (A) of justified in deleting disallowance of ₹ 6,94,83,000/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed Income of assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and finding recorded by the Ld. AO pertaining to LPS- 11 where amount of transaction were recorded in the name of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is justified in merely reproducing the content of the assessee's submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure operation carried out at the premises of third parties wherein certain documents were found which allegedly belonged to the present appellant and thus under such facts reassessment could have be done only u/s 153C and not u/s 147 and thus the impugned assessment order was liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 3 That the Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that section 153 C overrides section 147/148 and thus proceedings which are initiated pursuant to document seized under search seizure operations in third persons premises can only be under section 153C and not under section 147/148 3. At the outset, Ld. CIT-DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals relating to protective assessments had concluded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
