2015 (10) TMI 1626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. All these Miscellaneous Applications were fixed for hearing today i.e., 05.06.2015; however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and neither there was any request for adjournment. From the order sheet, we find that these Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the assessee on 17.05.2012 and were fixed for hearing for the first time on 06.07.2012. Thereafter, hearing was adjourned time and again, mostly on account of either the absence of assessee's Counsel or at the request of the assessee's Counsel. In the above circumstances, we deem it proper to decide the Miscellaneous Applications ex-parte qua the assessee. Since in all these Miscellaneous Applications common requests have been made and the facts of all the four cases are also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of survey, the assessee i.e, M/s Jindal Fashion surrendered the sum of Rs. 30 lacs for excess stock and Rs. 4 lacs for excess cash. However, in the return of income the assessee did not disclose the income as was surrendered during the course of survey. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 37,81,757/- in the case of assessee i.e, Jindal Fashion for Assessment Year 2003-04. The same was restricted to Rs. 9,21,538/- by the CIT (A). The Revenue was in appeal against the relief allowed by the CIT(A), while the assessee in the cross objections had challenged the addition sustained by the CIT(A). In the cross objection, the first ground raised by the assessee was against the validity of survey proceedings. The second ground ....