TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by : P. C. Sethi, AR Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR ORDER Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar all dated 20.3.2017 for the assessment years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014, respectively. 2. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal as under: IT(SS) A No.63/CTK/2017: A.Y. 2009-10. 1. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order of the learned DCIT which is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and has been passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice and for which the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the order passed by the learned DCIT which is without jurisdiction as the Income-tax Officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda is having the jurisdiction to assess the case of the appellant and for which the assessment order passed by the learned DCIT is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and the assessment order is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 3. That, the learned CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is excessive unreasonable and not passed without having any comparable case and for which same is liable to be deleted and returned figure is to be accepted. 10. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has treated the agricultural income as income from other sources which is contrary to the fact and law and for which same is liable to be deleted. 11. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has erred both in law and in fact by making addition of ₹ 5,50,000/- as undisclosed income and for which same is liable to be deleted. 12. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has erred both in law and in fact by treating entire receipt of ₹ 5,50,000/- as the income of the appellant and for which same is liable to be restricted to the percentage of income as disclosed by the appellant in the return of income on total gross receipt. 13. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has erred both in law and in fact by making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the section 127(2) of the Act and for which the order passed by the learned DCIT is illegal, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the failure to communicate the order u/s 127 of the Act if any, before proceeding to assessment by the learned DCIT is illegal and for which the assessment order passed by the learned DCIT is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 5. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the learned DCIT has passed the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act without annexing the statutory approval passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax if any and for which the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 6. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the assessment order as the approval u/s 153D of the Act if any has been done in gross violation to the provisions of the Act, rules and instruction made there under and for which the impugned order being illegal is liable to be quashed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has erred both in law and in fact by making addition of ₹ 5,89,073/- income from other sources which is a clear case of non-application of mind and for which same is liable to be deleted. 16. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the DCIT has erred both in law and in fact by making addition of ₹ 93,701/- income from other sources which is a clear case of non-application of mind and for which same is liable to be deleted. 17. That, the learned CI'T(A) has committed serious error in not allowing the deduction as the ld DCIT has erred both in law and in fact for not allowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A of ₹ 1,00,000/- which is liable to be allowed. 18. That the CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the penalty proceedings as the learned DCIT has initiated the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) 271(1) (c) of the Act which is a clear case of non application of mind and for which same is liable to be quashed. IT(SS) A No.65/CTK/2017: A.Y. 2011-2012 1. That, the learned CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulled. 7. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the learned DCIT has passed the assessment order ignoring the return of income and for which the addition made by the learned DCIT is illegal and is liable to be quashed and / or annulled. 8. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the estimation as the learned DCIT has estimated the net profit @ 10% of the total turnover without having any materials whatsoever and for which the said estimation being arbitrary and is a case of non application of mind is liable to be deleted. 9. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the estimation as the learned DCIT has estimated the net profit @ 10% which is excessive unreasonable and not passed without having any comparable case and for which same is liable to be deleted and returned figure is to be accepted. 10. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the addition as the learned DCIT has treated the agricultural income as income from other sources which is contrary to the fact and law and for which same is liable to be deleted. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is having the jurisdiction to assess the case of the appellant and for which the assessment order passed by the learned DCIT is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and the assessment order is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the order u/s 127 of the Act, if any has been passed for transferring the case from Income-tax Officer, Khurda Ward, Khurda to the learned DCIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur then the same will be illegal as the opportunity as required u/s 127 of the Act for change in place of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers has not given to the appellant in accordance with the section 127(2) of the Act and for which the order passed by the learned DCIT is illegal, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the failure to communicate the order u/s 127 of the Act if any, before proceeding to assessment by the learned DCIT is illegal and for which the assessment order passed by the learned DCIT is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 5. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) has committed serious error in not allowing the deduction as the ld DCIT has erred both in law and in fact for not allowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A of ₹ 57,715/- which is liable to be allowed. 14. That the ld CIT(A) has committed serious error in not giving credit to the tax deducted at source which is liable to be allowed while computing the total income. 15. That the CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the penalty proceedings as the learned DCIT has initiated the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) 271(1) (c) of the Act which is a clear case of non application of mind and for which same is liable to be quashed. IT(SS) A No.67/CTK/2017: A.Y. 2013-14. 1. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order of the learned DCIT which is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act and has been passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice and for which the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the order passed by the learned DCIT which is witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of mind as for the impugned assessment year the appellant has already filed the return u/s.139 of the Act and for which the assessment made on the basis of the said notice u/s.142(1) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 9. That the CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and, therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 10. That the CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the assessment order as the ld DCIT has passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and for which same is liable to be quashed and/or annulled. 11. That, the learned C1T(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the estimation as the learned DCIT has estimated the net profit @ 10% of the total turnover without having any materials whatsoever and for which the said estimation being arbitrary and is a case of non application of mind is liable to be deleted. 12. That, the learned C1T(A) has committed serious error in not deleting the estimation as the learned DC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 21. That, the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error as in not giving credit to the tax deducted at source which is liable to be allowed while computing the total income. 22. That the learned CIT(A) has committed serious error in not quashing the penalty proceedings as the learned DCIT has initiated the penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(b) 271 AAA of the Act which is a clear case of non-application of mind and for which same is liable to be quashed. 3. At the outset, ld A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has passed exparte order as the assessee failed to put in appearance on the dates fixed for hearing on 17.10.2016, 8.11.2016, 2.12.2016, 9.1.2017, 9.2.2017, 1.3.2017 and 14.3.2017. It was his submission that he undertakes to appear before the CIT(A) and fully co-operate with him in disposing of the appeals if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee. 4. Ld D.R. vehemently opposed the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee for granting one more opportunity before the CIT(A). He submitted that before the Assessing Officer also, there was non- compliance and, therefore, the assessment order came to be passed u/s.153A/144 of the Act. He submitted that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
