9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te proceedings without considering the remand report of Assessing Officer. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,10,120/ as the assessee has not cooperated during the remand proceedings and assessee has not filed any audited P&L account and balance sheet with audit report on 3CD form as per order sheet entry dated 20.1.2011. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,10,120/ as the assessee has not filed supporting bills/vouchers and proof of TDS in respect of expenses debited to P&L Account. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income of assessee. Thus, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and made following submissions:- 1. That all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not received by the assessee which resulted into non appearance by assessee or his legal counsel. 2. That on 13.11.2009, the Ld AR passed the ex parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.37,10,120/- being 40% of total expenses without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee relied upon the judgments in the case of Dhan Lakshmni Pictures v. CIT 144 ITR 452 (Mad.) and K. Baliah v. CIT 56 ITR 182 (Mys.) wherein it was held that assessee must be given an opportunity of being heard and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 16.12.2010 furnished complete address of the assessee along with sanction letter from IGL and telephone bill of MTNL as proof of residence of assessee and pleaded that contention of Assessing Officer is wrong as he had not sent any notice to the company. On receipt of rejoinder from Ld AR, the Ld CIT(A) again asked for remand report and Assessing Officer vide his office letter dated 28..2.2011 stated that assessee has been given sufficient opportunity and the assessee had filed only details of expenses and copy of return. He further stated that as per order sheet entry dated 20.1.2011 the assessee has not filed even audit report on Form No.3CD. He further stated that on 24.2.2011 nobody attended and nor assessee filed any details and ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before the Assessing Officer I find that appellant has discharged its onus regarding establishment of genuineness of the above expenditure. Considering the same, the ex parte estimated addition of Rs.37,10,120/- made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and the same is therefore deleted." 4. Aggrieved, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld DR argued that assessee had not cooperated at all. Therefore, in the absence of proper verification of expenditure and other books of accounts, vouchers, the Assessing Officer was justified in making disallowance at 40% of expenses. Therefore, he pleaded that order of Ld CIT(A) be reversed and that of Assessing Officer be upheld. 6. The Ld AR, on the other hand, argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
