Appeal granted, emphasizing procedure in tax proceedings. Remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure and thorough examination in tax proceedings. The case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a directive to provide reasonable opportunities for the Assessee to present their case effectively.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts by Ld. CIT(A) without prior notice under section 145(3).
2. Dismissal of appeal without discussing merits due to incomplete set of bills and vouchers.
3. Confirmation of arbitrary additions of specific amounts.
4. Rejection of claim under section 80C.
5. Addition of unexplained investment in purchasing a car.

Analysis:

1. The Assessee appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 04/03/2019, challenging the rejection of books of accounts without prior notice under section 145(3). The Assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by not providing a convincing reason for rejecting the books. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow proper procedure and set aside the action, directing a reevaluation of the issue.

2. The Assessee also contested the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) without discussing the merits due to incomplete bills and vouchers. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed examination by the Ld. CIT(A) and directed a fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for the Assessee to present their case.

3. Specific arbitrary additions of amounts were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without adequate justification. The Assessee argued that the deposits and investments were explainable from known sources. The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision lacking in thorough analysis and directed a reevaluation of these additions.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's claim under section 80C citing incomplete documentation. The Assessee maintained that the claim was supported by valid evidence. The Tribunal observed deficiencies in the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning and instructed a fresh review of the claim.

5. An addition was made for an unexplained investment in purchasing a car, which the Assessee argued was explainable with evidence such as a bank loan. The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision lacking in detailed examination and directed a reevaluation with proper consideration of the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure and thorough examination in tax proceedings. The case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, with a directive to provide reasonable opportunities for the Assessee to present their case effectively.

---