9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) has erred in law and facts while rejecting the ground of jurisdiction of the id. AO to frame the assessment 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in iaw and on facts while upholding the additions made by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the additions without providing cross confrontation to the assessee on the evidences relied upon by the Id.AO. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while presuming the facts and figures which were quite wrong and irrelevant as against the actual facts and figures explained by the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while taking the online purchase of shares to be offline preferential pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs ITO in ITA No.2358/Del/2012, order dated 12.06.2015. 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 5. I have heard the rival contention and gone through the record. Admittedly, no notice was issued by the concerned ITO-Ward-50(4) to the assessee before proceeding to frame the assessment. Any notice issued by ITO, Ward-37(4) being without jurisdiction has no legal sanctity. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs ITO in ITA No.2358/Del/2012, order dated 12.06.2015. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder:- "5. We perused the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction to issue the notice. The issue of valid jurisdiction is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act; therefore, the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed." 6. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
