TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Bench that he is withdrawing his Power of Attorney. Accordingly, fresh notice was issued fixing the hearing on 04-05-2016. The notice was issued through RPAD. However, the postal authorities returned the notice with a remark "Not known". Therefore, the case was adjourned to 05- 07-2016 by issue of fresh notice. However, when the name of the assessee was called none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any petition seeking adjournment of the appeal was filed. It was further seen from the order of the CIT(A) that despite repeated opportunities granted by him there was non-compliance for which he has passed exparte order. Under these circumstances and after considering the totality of the facts of the case we proceed to decide the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of sale proceeds of CD cassettes amounting to Rs. 13,52,250/- and opening cash balance of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the above entries by producing necessary evidence for sale of motor car, sale of gold ornaments, sale of CD cassettes by his spouse, the AO made addition of Rs. 18,49,020/- u/s.69B of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account. 4. Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs. 8,55,243/- u/s.69B on account of unexplained investment in Insurance Premium since the assessee could not explain the source for such deposits towards LIC Premium. Further, in absence of any satisfactory explanation regarding unsecured loan the AO made addition of Rs. 3,21,000/- u/s.68 of the I.T.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of this the appeal order is not judicious order" and it be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) - Kolhapur did not pass a 'speaking order' as mandated by S. 254(6) of the Act. The perusal of the appeal order would show that after reproducing the grounds of appeal raise, the para Nos. 4 to 4.11 are devoted reproducing the order of the A.O. The para Nos. 5 to 17 of the appeal order simply confirms the additions made by the A.O. but without properly appreciating the written submissions of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply his mind while confirming the additions made by the A.O. and the additions be set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout properly appreciating the written submissions submitted before him. The addition be deleted. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A)- Kolhapur was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 47,400/- made by A.O. of the Act without properly appreciating the written submissions submitted before him. The addition be deleted. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C is not justified. The levy of interest be quashed. 10. The appellant craves/leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal." 6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the Ld. Departmental Representatives. We do not find any infirmit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case and furnish evidence of cash deposit. It was stated that the appellant is a Doctor by profession and it is remotely impossible for him to carry on the business of film and music CD. The learned assessing officer should have examined wife of appellant who says that the cash was from her business of production of CD. The appellant has missed the point that wife of the appellant is her witness and not assessing officer's witness. It is the appellant who claimed without any supporting documents that part of the cash was deposited by his wife. The onus is on the appellant to establish the genuineness of source of cash deposit by furnishing suitable evidence / witnesses or producing his wife for examination. The appellant has failed to....