R.C. Sharma, A.M. - (1.) THESE are three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A) dt. 20th April, 2005 and 15th April, 2005 for the block assessment years 1st April, 1990 to 14th Feb., 2001, in the matter of orders passed under Section 158BD of the IT Act, 1961, wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: Grounds in IT(SS)A No. 347/Del/2005: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition made on account of purchase of land at Village Chawla. The transaction relating to the purchase of property having been disclosed in regular IT return filed by the assessee. The same could not be considered for block assessment. The addition of Rs. 45,43,233 (addition made by the AO) deserves to be deleted.
(2.) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in observing 'if as a result of search or on the basis of material information made available after the search it is found that the fact or the inferences shown in the return were wrong, then it cannot be said that Section 158BB does not apply'. Change of opinion being not permissible under the law and no new facts or evidences having come in possession of the Department as a result of search, the addition on account of purchase of land at Village Chawla deserves to be fully deleted. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of commission, mutation charges, NOC charges, etc. in computing the total cost of land purchased at Chawla by holding that the same have not been shown in the return but paid as per seized document without appreciating the fact the amount incurred by the appellant on the stamp duty etc. amounting to Rs. 2,59,185 at the time of purchase of land at Chawla includes the actual amount paid for commission, mutation charges, NOC charges etc. Therefore, addition of Rs. 50,000 made by the AO as unexplained investment in land is liable to be fully deleted.
(3.) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO had no jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under Section 158BD of the IT Act, 1961, since no search had taken place in the case of the appellant and satisfaction as required by Section 158BD of IT Act, 1961 had not been recorded. The order of AO being without jurisdiction requires to be cancelled on this ground.;