TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative to set aside all the issues raised in all the four appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after examining various details and documents to be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee and simultaneously also direct the assessee to appear on the given date of hearing and should not seek any adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and also to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. Appeals allowed for statistical purposes. - WTA No. 1 to 4/Ind/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2019 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri C.P. Rawka, CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd at or before hearing. WTA No.02/2019 Assessment Year 2011-12 1.That the learned A.O erred in low and the fact of the case and assessed net Wealth at ₹ 1,70,55,170/- as against the Return Net Wealth at ₹ 29,00,005/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance of exemptions on account of car ₹ 16,47,858/-, cash of ₹ 40,030/- and Plots of ₹ 85,04,585/- as is assessed by Ld. A.O inspite of the fact that these assets were business assets of the assessee. The addition therefore made is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WTA No.04/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 1.That the learned A.O erred in low and the fact of the case and assessed net Wealth at ₹ 2,48,54,737/- as against the Return Net Wealth at ₹ 29,00,005/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance of exemptions on account of Motor car ₹ 11,90,577/-, cash of ₹ 71,614/- and Plots of ₹ 85,04,585/- as is assessed by Ld. A.O inspite of the fact that these assets were business assets of the assessee. The addition therefore made is totally wrong and illegal on the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts and in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash in hand at ₹ 3,25,290/- . Addition was also made for ₹ 13,18,529/- for the alleged difference between the fixed assets as per the Balance sheet and the assets declared in the wealth tax return. Net wealth assessed at ₹ 65,46,481/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that though most of the details were filed before Ld. CIT(A) but Ld. CIT(A) has not been given cognizance to some of the details filed by the assessee. Ld. Counsel prayed for granting one more opportunity for going back before Ld. CIT(A) to place some more necessary details on record in order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
