9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the impugned order on the following grounds before us: "1. The order dated 24-09-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is invalid and unsustainable in law. 1.1 The order dated 24-09-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 1.2 Vide notice dated 13-05-2019 the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has fixed the hearing of the appeal of 21-05-2019. Mr. Sujit Modi Chattered Accountant of the assessee attended the office of Ld. Commissioner of Income, Tax (Appeals) on 21-05-2019. However the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not available and the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) refused to accept the submissions fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt Bombay in company petition No. 16 of 2007, company petition No. 511 of 2007 and company petition No. 159 of 2009, the company was ordered to be wound up. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay was received by the assessee in the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 under consideration. As a result of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the long term assets held by the assessee in the shape of the shares of M/s. Astral Glass Pvt. Ltd. were extinguished in the Financial Year 2010-11, the year in which the assessee received the order of the Hon'ble High Court. This has resulted in long term capital loss on extinguishment of the shares. If the proper opportunity of hearing was granted by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off the appeal by way of an ex-parte order. It was observed by the CIT(A) that though the AO had made an addition of Rs. 73,00,000/- towards unexplained cash credit, however, there was nothing discernible from the records which would reveal that the impugned amount was credited by the assessee in his books of accounts. In fact, it was observed by the CIT(A) that there was no mention on the part of the AO that the assessee was maintaining any books of accounts. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) was of the view that as the assessee had sold a property, therefore, the sale consideration ought to have been assessed under the head "Capital Gains". Backed by his aforesaid observation, the CIT(A) directed the AO to treat the sum of Rs. 73,00,000/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., therefore, in case, if he would have been afforded an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), then, he would have been able to demonstrate the aforesaid fact and sought setting-off of the aforesaid LTCL against the LTCTG on the sale of the property in question. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us. Admittedly, there can be no second thought on the fact that the assessee had consistently adopted a lackadaisical approach and had neither complied with the directions of the A.O nor appeared before the CIT(A). Before us, the conduct of the assessee was no better, and as observed by us hereinabove he had failed to participate in the course of the appellate proceedings before us. Be that as it may, we find s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
