TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst 16.64% as determined by the Assessing Officer. Further he has determined the G.P. on historic basis and nor on actual basis. This is very excessive and arbitrary unjust and any rate without prejudice very excessive. 2. That similarly the additional of Rs. 48,03,475/- as made by the Assessing Officer towards the assessable income of the appellant u/s 69 of I.T. Act on account of alleged unaccounted purchases is also wholly illegal and without any basis which has been rejected by the C.I.T(Appeals). At any rate, without prejudice, the addition as made is very excessive. 3. That without prejudice to the above grounds, the following additions/disallowances as made by the Assessing Officer towards the assessable income are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disallowances out of expenses made by the AO on estimate basis. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.10.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,26,85,980/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 30.10.2005. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at nil income after adjusting brought forward depreciation to the extent of Rs. 23,88,057/-. The AO made the additions of Rs. 1,49,71665/-. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who allowed part relief to the assessee and sustained the additions partly. Now the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of the additions while the department is in appeal against the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing the relief to the assessee by reducing the gross profit rate to 11% as against 16.64% declared by the Assessee in the preceding year and in deleting the additions made by the AO by considering the merit of the case. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed from the entries in the order sheet, copy of which is placed at page no. 1 of the assessee's paper book that the AO asked the assessee on 28.12.2007 to explain how the sales of Rs. 2.18 crore was made when the total opening stock of raw material was Rs. 1.70 crore and himself mentioned that the reply regarding disproportionate sales and purchases was filed on the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xed for 17.12.2008. CA Rajesh Bahl attended the proceedings on that date and on his request the same was adjourned to 07.01.2009, 27.01.2009, 10.02.2009, on which date none attended. Proceedings were again taken up per this office notice dated 16.03.2009 and the same were fixed for 26.03.2009. Again the same were adjourned to 29.04.2009 on the request of the counsel of the appellant CA Rajesh Bahl. The same was adjourned to 21.05.2009, on which date CA Rajesh Bahl, Counsel of the appellant filed written submissions and the proceedings were adjourned to 16.06.2009. Again, the same was adjourned to 07.07.2009 on the request of the counsel of the appellant. None attended on that date. The CIT(A), Karnal requested the assessee to produce books ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellate proceedings were going on since May, 2008, no other reasons has been given from the noting of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the case was fixed for hearing in the year 2010 only once on 24.09.2010 and on the said date the accountant of the assessee appeared and a request was made for adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the contents of that request, there may be some compelling reasons for seeking the adjournment but nothing is mentioned in the impugned order. It is also noticed that the case was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(A) on 24.09.2010 and by rejecting the request of the assessee for adjournment the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2010. 10. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed an appropriat....