9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO on account amount received on sale of shares of Rs. 32,68,500/- treating the same as unexplained credits u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by AO holding the Long Term Capital gain declared by the assessee, to be not genuine. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the assessee bringing on record all evidences and material to prove the genuineness of the transaction. 5. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portunity to cross examine. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of exemption claimed by assessee u/s 10(38) of Rs. 32,68,500/- treating the same as unexplained credits without there being any basis for the same. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds which read as under :- "1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO issuing notice u/s 143(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of PAN-AEVPG2170E from ITO 58(2), New Delhi to ITO Ward 3(3) Gurgaon {now merged with ITO Ward 3(.1), Gurgaon dated 19-08- 2017. 10) Assessment records were perused which transpired that there is no noting by the Assessing Officer, Ward 58(2), Delhi regarding transfer of case to the Assessing Officer, Ward-3(3), Gurugram. 11) Ld DR vide submissions dated 19-09-2023 stated that no objection within one month as per Sec 124 has been made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, thus Sec 292BB will support the case of Revenue. 12) AR of the appellant submitted, that by placing reliance on ITO vs Almak Finance P Ltd ITA-4504/Del/2017 dt 14-10-2020, stated that when the authority does not have jurisdiction over the assessee, the act d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022= ACIT vs P & R Infraprojects Ltd." 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find that it is nowhere disputed by the Revenue that the notices issued in this regard were from non-jurisdiction AO. Only defence made out by the Revenue is that there was no objection within one month as per section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') made by the assessee during assessment proceedings, thus section 292BB supports the case of the Revenue. I find myself in agreement with the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee wherein by placing reliance upon the case of ITO vs. Almak Finance P. Ltd. in ITA No.4504/Del/2017 dated 14.10.2020, it was held that when authorities have no jurisdiction over the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
