Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee went to the root of the matter and were legal in nature. No fresh facts required to be investigated on this ground. Hence, they were to be admitted. Tribunal held that income already assessed can be disturbed only when there is some incriminating material which has a capacity of upward assessment. The additions on account of disallowance of additional had been made without any incriminating material found during the course of search. Accordingly the addition was deleted followed  CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017)  397 ITR 344 (SC) and CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016)  380 ITR 573 (Delhi) (HC) . Tribunal also held that as  no notice under section 153C was issued for the assessment year 2008-09. Instead the assessment for this year was made by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act and the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act. According to section 153C(1) the date of search in the case of a person other than the person in respect of whom the search was conducted would be postponed to the date of receipt of books of account or necessary documents by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Therefore as the satisfaction note was recorded on August 26, 2009, the corresponding six assessment years covered under the provision of section 153C of the Act started from the assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10. Consequently, the assessment year 2008-09 was covered by the provisions of section 153C of the Act and necessarily the assessment should have been made under section 153C of the Act. Admittedly, no notice under section 153C of the Act had been issued to the assessee for this assessment year. Merely mentioning that order had been passed under section 153A without issuing any notice under section 153C of the Act was not sufficient. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.( AY.2006-07, 2008-09)