9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing Ld. DR as well as on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Rs. 2,52,98,620/-. The above assessed income includes addition u/s 69A of Rs. 2,52,98,620/- as unexplained money deposited in bank account. 4. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without admitting the same on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the conditions of payment of advance tax as specified u/s 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case, it is the claim of the assessee that since the assessee remained absent the assessment order was passed ex-parte & whatever deductions were legally available to the assessee were not allowed by the Assessing Officer. It is the contention of the assessee that being cooperative society the business income of the assessee was subject to deduction 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
