9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the assessee firm on 11.07.2011. In compliance to the above notice, assessee submitted return of income declaring income of Rs. 76,39,871/- on 20.10.2011. The AO issued a Questionnaire calling for information under section 142(1) of the Act along with notice under section 143(2) on 20.10.2011. The AO asked the assessee to explain the household expenses incurred by him during the relevant assessment year. The AO, after perusal of the reply of the assessee, was of the opinion that the household expenses claimed by him was not sufficient to meet out the day-to-day requirements of the assessee and according to him, the amount claimed by the assessee was considered low. The AO further observed that the assessee had not been able to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 12.07.2013 are only issued and there is not an iota of fact about service of notices. Law requires service of notice before proceedings ex-parte. The order passed by CIT (Appeal) is silent on service of notice. There is difference between issuance of notice and service of notice. No real opportunity of hearing was provided as no notice as alleged in impugned order had been received by assessee. (C) That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) had erred in law in upholding addition of Rs. 4 lacs on a ground of low house hold withdrawal which had been made by AO by purely guess work. No specific reason / documents or enquiry report was brought on record by AO while enhancing the income by Rs. 4.00 Lakhs on ground of low house hold withdrawal. (D) The Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 6. Grounds No.(B) to (D) are against dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by Ld. CIT(A) and upholding the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of low household withdrawal by the ld. CIT (A). 7. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed a detailed note on household expenses and its sources but the same was not considered by the AO as well as CIT (A). For the sake of clarity, we reproduce the note on household drawings submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities:- "DRAWING DETAIL FOR FAMILY EXPENSES DRAWING DETAIL FOR FAMILY MEMBERS SL NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. Cash from Mrs. Sudesh Kaushal 71800 2. Expenses paid by Mr. Dinesh Kaushal 388214 3. Cash from Mrs. Chandrika Kaushal 25000 Total 485014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available material and the circumstances of the case. The assessing Authority should not be vindictive while making "Best Judgment Assessment." Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT (A) completely ignored the fact that there was no material before the AO to treat the household withdrawal low and so the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the assessee is bad in law. In this view of the matter, he prayed that the orders of the lowers authorities be set aside and the addition be deleted. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the details of withdrawals for meeting the household expenses were submitted before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
