9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:- 3. Assessee is an individual who had filed her return of income u/s 153A of the Act on 29.02.2012 disclosing income of Rs.4,76,930 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: "1. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in relying on the ratio held in Kabul Chawla ITA No.709/2014 Dated 28.05.2015 (Delhi) and Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 in holding that completed assessment cannot be interfered by the AO without incriminating material and completely ig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 4. AO in the order framed u/s 154 r.w 143(3) of the Act had made addition of Rs.3,62,900/- by disallowing the Agriculture income shown by assessee and made addition of Rs.1,52,25,000/- being addition u/s 68 of the Act. When the matter was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt proceedings, and not in the basis of incriminating material/evidence found during the search proceedings. I, therefore, delete the aforesaid additions made by AO and allow the respective grounds taken by appellant. However, if in future the ratiodecidendi of the decision of Hon'ble High court gets reversed, the appeal will revive on these issues." 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g material or evidence found during the course of search proceedings. He thereafter by relying on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) held that no addition could have been made by AO. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue nor has Revenue pointed to any contrary binding decision in its support. In such a situation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
