2012 (9) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f I.T. Act without sufficient material and enquiry before issue of notice. The Assessing Officer has disregarded Supreme Court order in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 185 (Supreme Court) and 251 ITR 263 (Supreme Court). Enquiry before initiation is missing. 2. In making addition of Rs.Rs.1,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer has relied upon a standard write up which is not applicable on facts in this case. 3. The addition of Rs.Rs.1 lac was made in total disregard to evidences and facts placed before the Assessing Officer i.e. PAN, cheque transaction proof from bank statements and confirmation from Mr. Rohit Rana. The appellant is not expected to explain source of source. The onus laid on the appellant was duly discharg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. (Delhi High Court) order dated 16.12.2011 have allowed normal expenses even where no sale/purchase or manufacturing is there.   2. The learned Income-tax Officer has not failed to levy tax as per 115JB and has charged full normal tax.   3. The appellant denies applicability of levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 4. The CIT(A) as per order gave two notices at South Extn. Address whereas the company after filing of appeal had shifted from this address to Seelampur, Delhi. As no notices could be served on the appellant the hearing could not be attended and the CIT(A) without ensuring services of notice, passed an exparte order. The Income-tax Officer file carries the new address, in return filed before expart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in I.T.A. No.1509 of 2006; Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2001) 167 CTR (Guj.) 34 (2001) 250 ITR 229 (Guj.); and CIT Vs. Stellar Investment Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC).   3. On appeal, none appeared before the learned CIT(A) despite notice dated 21st October, 2011 and 1st December, 2011. In these circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.Rs.1 lacs, there being no evidence in support of grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A). 4.. Similarly in the AY 2007-08, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs.Rs.2,99,518/- on account of expenditure on salary, conveyance, office expenses, legal and professional charges and accounting charges etc. as detailed below:- [In Rs] Salary Rs. 2,37,668/- Conveyance 18,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with law and apparently, the assessee did pursue these appeals in right earnest. We may clarify that we are not condoning the default on the part of the assessee. However, as is apparent from the observations of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned orders, the ld CIT(A) dismissed these appeals without even analyzing the issues or recording his specific findings on the said issues raised in the grounds of appeal before him . A mere glance at the impugned orders reveals that the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural just ice, namely, that every judicial/quasi- judicial body/authority must pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned auth....