9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No.667/LKW/2018 are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was conducted at the premises of the assessee and notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 1.6.2016. In response, the assessee filed his return of income showing income of Rs. 12,78,090/-. Later on, notices under section 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were also issued and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment at Rs. 32,08,950/- by making addition of Rs. 15,76,541/- on account of Long/Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 78,827/- on account of commission @ 5% on the capital gains and Rs. 2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid or held that nature and source of credits appearing in the bank account of the appellant remained unexplained and in treating the same as undisclosed income/investment under section 69 of the Act. 03. Because the appellant has complied with all the ingredients of section 10(38) and 111 of the Act, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO, thereby grossly erred in denying such benefit of exemption under section 10(38) and 111 of the Act. 04. Because the exemption as claimed under section 10(38) of the Act, by the assessee stood supported by a large number of case laws which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the view taken by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is totally erroneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of law and be deleted. 09. Because the Distt. Valuation Officer has failed to consider the objections filed by the assessee as provided by the approved valuer, the valuation report prepared by the Distt. Valuation Officer being bad in law, the addition made and upheld by the CIT(A) be deleted. 5. The assessee has also raised the following Additional Ground of appeal: 1. Because the approval given by the JCIT u/s 153D of the Act, 1961 to the order passed, u/s 153A is without application of mind, purely in a mechanical manner, without appreciating the facts and not following the provisions/mandate of the section, which makes the order passed u/s 153A non est, void ab initio bad in law, the same be quashed. 6. At the time of hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and different assessment years. He further submitted that the order passed by the DCIT on the same day of order of approval granted by the ACIT, i.e. 31.12.2017, is without application of mind and without appreciating the facts and does not follow the mandate of section 153A of the Act. He submitted that an identical issue had arisen before the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.674/LKW/2018, vide order dated 07.10.2021 wherein, the Tribunal had quashed the assessment order based on the same common approval dated 31.12.2017 granted by ACIT, Central Range, Kanpur under section 153D of the Act. He further submitted that against the said order dated 07.10.2021 (supra) of the Tribunal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, vide ITA No. 86 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.12.2022. 13. It will be relevant to reproduce the approval letter under section 153D of the Act at this juncture: 14. As is seen, the above approval letter has been issued in respect of 38 cases and apparently it does not even mention that 'approval' has been granted. Thus, it is seen that the issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2015-16 in ITA No.674/LKW/2018 wherein, the Tribunal held as under: "9. Thus, in Navin Jain & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of search & seizure operation on 31.08.2015, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law and be deleted. 02. Because the cash found at the time of search was made up of the following: (a) Cash belonged to Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 9,00,000/- (b) Other sums with household. Rs. 1,95,000/- The explanation being fully verifiable, no such addition as having been made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), could have been made either on facts and in law, the same be deleted. 03. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the facts, the explanation, submissions and evidences filed by the assessee and has thereby erred in upholding the addition, the addition made be deleted. 18. In this appeal also, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
