INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANOJ JAIN HUF, MUMBAI

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in quashing the assessment order without making any discussion on the merit of the case.” 2. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in disregarding the ratio led down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal that all the notices issued by the Revenue between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 are deemed notices issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act meaning thereby that these are valid notices and not barred by limitation.” 3. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in holding that notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation irrespective of the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued as per provision of section 148A and well within time and valid.” 4. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in deleting the addition made in terms of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring that the Assessing Officer has proved the alleged transaction in the form of LTCG/STCL/STCG from an operator Shri. Naresh Jain, as nothing but an accommodation entry.” 5. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to entertain this appeal, though, the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.5/2024 Dt. 15.03.2024 but the case falls within the exceptions laid down clause (h) of Para 3.1 of the Board’s Circular No.5/24 Dt. 15.03.2024.”