TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 1832/Del/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2022 - SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Akshat Jain , Adv. Revenue by : Shri H. K. Choudhary , CIT - D. R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI , AM : 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onality on AO. 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the judgements of the Hon ble Kerla High Court in the cases of Mr. K. N. Gopa Kumar vs CIT Central (2017) 390 ITR 131, Mr. K. P. Ummer vs. CIT vide order dated 19.02.2019. and CIT vs. P. Sasi Kumar 73 Taxmann.com 173 wherein it is clearly held by the Hon ble High Court that the condition of incriminating material found and seized is not mandatory for making additions u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. 3. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in quashing the assessment on technical grounds and not deciding on the various issues on merits. 4. (a) That the Ld CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO. 7. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that the additions made by AO were not on the basis of any incriminating material or evidence found during the course of search proceedings and CIT(A) rightly followed the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the assessment years under consideration were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
