TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer made an order u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2010. The whole order of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under:- "The assessee company e-filed its return declaring loss at Rs.14,55,416/- on 27.09.2008, which was processed u/s 143(1) on the same loss. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.08.2009 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, various notices u/s 143(2} and 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid notices Sh. Padam Prakash, C.A., counsel of the assessee company attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the required details & documents. Books of accounts, bills/vouchers produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(b) The ld. CIT had no jurisdiction to invoke section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (c) The ld. AO. has passed the order dt. 30.11.2010 u/s 143(3) after proper application of mind. (d) Various Observations and directions made by the ld. CIT in his section 263 order are either factually incorrect or are untenable in law and various case laws relied upon by the ld. CIT are not applicable to the appellant's case being distinguishable on facts. 2. That without prejudice to ground nO.1 above, the Id. CIT has grossly erred in law by making trading addition of Rs.58,60,909/- after rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the books results could not be verified and as such were unascertainable and non ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en that this order was not at all a speaking order. On a specific enquiry from the Bench with regard to any questionnaire or explanation asked by the Assessing Officer in respect of the sale returns of Rs.4,96,68,636/- which was found to be abnormal feature in respect of a business of contractor, ld. AR showed his inability and that there appears to be no enquiry made in this regard. Ld. AR also made an application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules for filing the additional evidences. We have also heard both the sides on the issue of admission of additional evidences and after hearing, we find that in the interest of justice and equity, it will be proper to admit the additional evidences. We also find it appropriate to remand the issue to the fil....