TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....148 of the I.T. Act 1961 on which the assessment order U/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act 1961 is based as there was no confirmation of loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Sri Satya Prakash Jaiswal Prop. M/s Akash Trading Co. and the learned assessing officer was also not in possession of information regarding the purchase of New Truck. The assessment order as framed by AO and confirmed by learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow deserves to be cancelled. 2. Because without prejudice to the above fact and legal status of the assessment proceedings this may be stated that the assessing officer as well as the learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow has not considered this fact that the appellant has never given any loan to Sri Satya Prakash Jaiswal Prop. M/s Akash Trading Co. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estment as made towards the purchase of New Truck. 6. Because the assessment order passed by the AO and confirmed by learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow deserves to be set aside to assessing officer for fresh findings after considering the facts which has been brought to the notice of learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow during the course of appellate proceedings. 7. Because the appellant assessee reserves his right to add, delete or alter the grounds of the appeal with the permission of the Chair before the hearing of the appeal or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. Because the assessment order framed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A)-II, Lucknow is unjust, unreasonable and also bad in law." 3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kash Jaiswal along with the documentary evidence and show cause why the amount may not be treated as undisclosed investment and added to the total income of the assessee. The case was adjourned to 30/09/2009. Thereafter, on this date i.e. 30/08/2009, Shri H. Rahman appeared and requested for further adjournment to 04/11/2009. On this date i.e. 04/11/2009, Sram Hussain, S/o Shri H. Rahman, Advocate appeared and filed written reply which was placed on record. The Assessing Officer also noted that in the reply, the assessee has mentioned that he has not given any loan to Shri Satya Prakash Jaiswal in assessment year 2004-05. The case was adjourned to 18/11/2009 but on this date, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed by CIT(A). He simply placed reliance on server judicial pronouncements. Now we examine the applicability of these judgments. 5.3 The first judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana rendered in the case of Aggarwal Engg. Co. (supra). In this case, it was held that once net profit rate was applied, no further addition was called for on account of unaccounted purchase in the facts and circumstances of that case. In our considered opinion, this judgment is not rendering any help to the assessee because in the present case, no addition has been made on the basis of any entry in the rejected books of account. In fact these two entries of purchase of truck Rs. 10 lac and loan given to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent because the investment of Rs. 20 lacs for which addition was made, were not appearing in the books. 5.5 The third judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the judgment of Hon'ble Mysore High Court rendered in the case of Baliah (K.) (supra). In that case, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that if an Assessing Authority wants to make a best judgment assessment on the basis of a comparable case, that case has to be put to the assessee and the assessee be given an opportunity to give his explanation regarding the same. In the present case, the facts are different. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not made any assessment on the basis of comparable case, which has not been put to the assessee for his ex....