“cross objection”

AppealsSection 253(4)Section 253(4)4,331 judgments

The decision most relied on for cross objection is Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (116 Taxmann.com 701), cited in 87 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cross objection

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

DCIT v. Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd.

378 ITR 693 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional grounds of appeal, especially when they are legal in nature, and allows for filing cross-objections before the Tribunal where facts are on record.

Pr. CIT v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

86 Taxmann.com 148 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

A respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal can support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against them, even without filing a cross-objection, under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore

128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. CIT

282 ITR 321 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee-respondent can support an appellate order on any ground available to them, even if they haven't filed cross-objections, provided the new ground is a point of law and doesn't require fresh evidence.

Mavany Brothers v. CIT, Panjim

62 Taxmann.com 50 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

A delay in filing cross-objections can be condoned if there are bonafide reasons and no mala-fide conduct or lackadaisical approach by the assessee.

CIT v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

234 ITR 663 · 1998 · High Court

citing judgments

A cross objection filed by an assessee against an order of the CIT(A) can be considered as an appeal by the assessee.

CIT(E) v. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria

168 Taxmann.com 35 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) cannot invoke Section 13(1)(b) at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, especially when the assessee has a valid registration. Section 13(1)(b) is only attracted after the assessee has crossed the hurdle of being eligible for exemption under Section 11 by obtaining registration.

Judgments citing cross objection

Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

97/Viz/2023 (AY: 2020-21) are filed by the assessee. Since the issues raised in Revenue’s appeals, Cross Objections of the assessee as well as the assessee’s appeal are inter-connected, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated ... filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-20 is allowed. CO Nos. 15 & 16/Viz/2023 (AY: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (By Assessee) 16. These Cross Objections are filed by the assessee for the AY 2018- 19 and 2019-20. While adjudicating the Revenue’s appeals

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Guntubolu Uma Sai Prasad, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Potluri Ravi L/R Late Potluri Babu Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 120/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sri Potluri Ravi, Smt. Potluri Tax, Circle-2(1), Annapurna, Ms. Potluri Vijayawada. Madhavi & Smt. Surya Vijaya Maruthi (L/Rs Of Late Potluri Babu Rao), D.No. 29-23-27, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520002. C.O. No.31/Viz/2020 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sri Potluri Ravi, Smt. Potluri Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Annapurna, Ms. Potluri Tax, Circle-2(1), Madhavi & Smt. Surya Vijaya Vijayawada. Maruthi (L/Rs Of Late Potluri Babu Rao), D.No. 29-23-27, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520002. (Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

hence, these grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 17. With respect Cross Objection raised by the assessee, at the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s Cross 14 Objection is not pressed. Therefore

ITO, 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S J S Jube Traders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 410/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble & Income Tax Officer-20(2)(1) V. M/S. J.S Tube Traders Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor 337, Signal Hill Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Opp Vihar Hotel, Avenue Road Darukhana, Mumbai- 400010 Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Pan: Aaafj2901K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Pronouncement : 12.07.2023 C.O. No. 32/MUM/2023 M/s. J.S. Tube Traders O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by the revenue and assessee respectively, against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short ... restored. 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 6. In the cross objection, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition

ACIT Circle- 3 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Videocon Realty & Infrastructures Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7558/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13 and 2016-17. The assessee has also filed a cross objection challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The revenue and the assessee have challenged the appeal and the cross objection on various grounds ... revenue is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition/disallowance. The assessee has also filed cross objection for AY. 2012-13. 6. It is observed that the assessee company is undergoing insolvency proceedings before Hon’ble NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Videocon Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7401/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, DR

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

DCIT, CC- 28, New Delhi vs. Saarthak Vanijya India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 3822/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaआ.अ.संसंसंसं/.I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

Section 148Section 68

Centre, 11, Goenka Lane, Shivtalla Jhandewalan Extn., Street, Kolkatta. New Delhi. PAN No. AACCR1635F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ" & Cross Objection No. 70/Del/2020 (In I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017) िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/s Saarthak Vanijya India DCIT, बनाम बनाम ... I.T.A.No.3822/Del/2017 & CO No. 70/Del/2020 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J.M. The Departmental appeal as well as cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-29, New Delhi dated 29.03.2017 for AY 2007-08. 2. The facts

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 54Section 54F

DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has also filed a Cross objection. The grounds of appeal raised by the respective parties are as under:- ITA No. 413/JP/2022 – A.Y. 2013-14 (Revenue) ‘’1. On the facts ... rejecting this Ground of appeal.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay 92 days in filing the Cross Objection by the assessee for which the assessee submitted that 3 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI total tax effect in this case

M/S Mata Road Carriers, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

before the Honble ITAT by the assesse on being aggrieved with adverse appeal order of the CIT appeal passed on 01-02-2016 . 2. Cross objection under section 253(4) has not been filed as per record. 3. As per records, additional ground under rule 29 is added

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- 57, [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.12.2016 for the A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08. The assessee has filed cross objections against appeals filed by the revenue and the Appeal in ITA.No. 7260/Mum/2018 is filed by the assessee against order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated ... passed u/s. 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). 2. Since the issues raised in all the appeals and cross objection are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals and cross objections are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this Page

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

Yamu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and cross

ITA 3681/DEL/2000[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 1996-97 Dcit, Central Circle-31, Versus M/S. Yamu Industries Ltd., New Delhi. 5051, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Del/2004 (In Ita No.3681/Del/2000) Assessment Year: 1996-97 M/S. Yamu Industries Ltd., Versus Dcit, Central Circle-31, 5051, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi. Darya Ganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 254

Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 06.07.2023 Date of pronouncement: 06.07.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: Captioned appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee arise out of order passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1996-97. ITA No. 3681/Del/2000 ... 04/2004 2 2. Before we proceed to deal with the captioned appeal and cross objection, it is necessary to give a brief factual backdrop. 3. Assessment in case of the assessee was originally competed under section 144 of the Act on 26.03.1999 determining total income of Rs.7

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bhilai vs. Mesers Shree Arihant Traders, Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee, both are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)

Years: 2014-2015) ACIT-1(1), Bhilai Vs M/s Shree Arihant Traders, 88-A, Light Industrial Area, Bhilai PAN No. :AAVFS 0118 A AND Cross Objection No.25/RPR/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.187/RPR/2019) (Assessment Years: 2014-2015) M/s Shree Arihant Traders, Vs ACIT-1(1), Bhilai 88-A, Light Industrial Area ... against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-II, Raipur, dated 22.05.2019 for the assessment year 2014- 2015. The assessee has also filed cross objection. 2. The revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/S V.C. Granite, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

order as non est and bad in law. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal memo. ITA NO. 171/JP/2023 (Revenue ) : The revenue has raised the grounds ... Income Tax Act. In this regard it is submitted that the Agra Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing the cross objections of the assessee held as under: "17. In conclusion, we find that there was no notice issued u/s 143 (2) prior to the completion of assessment under

R P Wood Products Private Limited, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

facts of the case of the appellant. The appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company

Ghanshyam Tak, Naya Ghar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

V C Granites, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

Date of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH (AM) 1. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are pertained to the same assessment year and arising from same order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, both these appeals ... find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and same stand dismissed. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 13.Assessee’s Cross Objection ITA No. 158/Mum/2023 Ground of appeal in the cross objection of the assessee: 1. Erroneous re-opening of Assessment under section

Dy C.I.T.Central Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2434/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

even date 16/07/2021 (for A.Y. 2012–13 & 2014–15) and orders of even date 20/07/2021 (for the A.Y. 2013–14 & 2015–16) and cross objection by the assessee have been filed for the assessment year 2012–13 and 2013–14. 2. Since the present batch of matters arise ... account of long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains claimed by the assessee. While, the assessee, vide its cross objection, has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in the absence of any incriminating material