TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication was submitted by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee Shri Mukesh M Patel but since it is very old appeal filed in the year 2006 and many adjournments were allowed, this adjournment application was rejected and we proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 3. First we take up the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(SS) No.92/Ahd/2006. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing, we infer that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal and hence this appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. Under these circumstances, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs.27,58,899/- on account of undisclosed income out of suppression of closing stock." 7. Ld. D.R. supported the assessment order. 8. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and have perused the material and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that this issue has been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) at para 7.4 of his order which is reproduced below:- "I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the facts of the case. As discussed in earlier paras. I have hold that the Assessing Officer was justified in determine the amount of sales for the Block Period under consideration and as a result of that I have confirmed the addition of Rs.14,06,583....