TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rs. 6,50,000, Rs. 77,00,000, Rs. 1, 10,00.000 and Rs. 1,96,00,000 for asst. yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06 respectively without properly appreciating the evidence and the facts relied upon by the AO i.e., (i) the estimate of sales of the assessee made on the basis of raw material consumed and evidence of sales found and seized for the month of January, 2005. (ii) Computation of additions were duly confronted to the assessee in notice under s. 142(1). 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 20 lacs and Rs. 40 lacs made in the asst. yr. 2005-06 on account of 'lawn charges' and 'heritage banquet hall' without considering the following facts: (i) 'Lawn charges' have come dow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessment is not barred by limitation. The assessment order was dt. 29th Dec., 2006. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that inspection of the computer of the AO revealed that the assessment was in fact framed on 4th Jan., 2007 and that that being so, the assessment was barred by time. Various other arguments were also raised by the assessee in this regard. However, vide the impugned order, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's ground concerning this issue, observing as follows: "4.2 I have gone through the assessment orders and the submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative during the appellate proceedings. The submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative were for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 671 (Cal). As the assessment orders have been passed on 29th Dec., 2006, I do not find any merit in the ground of appeal and the same is dismissed." 5. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that while passing the order in this regard, the learned CIT(A) has not considered the following arguments specifically raised before him, though such arguments were taken note of by the learned CIT(A) in para 4 of his order: "(i) That envelops of post card size cannot accommodate seven assessment orders along with demand notices and penalty notices. (ii) Weight as per post office receipts differ substantially with the actual weight. (iii) No inspection was provided in spite of various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee before the learned CIT(A), by stating them at pp. 29 to 31 of the paper book filed by the assessee, have also illegally not been taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A): "(i) If 49 assessment orders were ready on 28th Dec., 2006 why only 18 assessment orders were served on Shri Surinder Mahajan, chartered accountant on 28th Dec., 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in his office. Why balance 31 orders said to be completed on 28th Dec., 2006 and 28 assessment orders said to be completed on 29th Dec., 2006 were not served either on the assessee or on the counsel Shri Surinder Mahajan, chartered accountant on 28th Dec., 2006 to 31st Dec., 2006 and were said to be sent to assessee on 31st Dec., 2006 (Sunday) at 3:05 p.m. just 10 minutes prior to ....