TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r And Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. For the Department : Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: The captioned appeal preferred by the Revenue and the cross objection preferred by the assessee are directed against the order dated 10.3.2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon, pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. Both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds of appeal: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been met by the Ld. AO. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) ought to have quashed the proceedings initiated u/s 153C inter-alia on the ground that assessment in this case has already been completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 03-10-2008 wherein after detailed examination of the case, share capital and share premium is accepted as genuine. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the aggregate addition of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of share application money received by the assessee company as the assessee company has discharged its onus as per section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, more so when there was no incrimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Siksha vs. CIT, (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa) Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT, (1992) 194 ITR 0548 (Bom.) 5. At the outset learned counsel for the assessee, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, submitted that the issue raised by way of cross-objection is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh [2023] 155 taxmann.com 155 (SC). Learned counsel submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2014 is without jurisdiction and bad in law. He contended that the assessment year in question i.e. 2006-07 is beyond the block period in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 0612, which has been affirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07 would fall beyond six years as contemplated by the law. Therefore, we set aside the impugned assessment order being bad in law. The additional ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection is allowed. Since we have decided the issue of limitation in favour of the assessee, the other grounds become of academic interest only. 7. Now we take up the Revenue s appeal. In the cross objection of the assessee we have set aside the impugned assessment order, being beyond time limit as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, Revenue s appeal has no force and stands dismissed accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 18th O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
