TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osing of the appeal ex-parte and upholding the addition of Rs. 16,55,000 as unexplained cash deposits in Bank a/c is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in passing exparte order without allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing. There was a sufficient cause for failure to comply to the notice of hearing fixed on 12.9.13. 1.3 The CIT(A) has grievously failed to appreciate that the impugned addition was made by AO without giving sufficient and specific opportunity to the appellant and without furnishing the entire evidence collected by him with regard to the purchases, including statements recorded. The appellant should therefore be allowed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(3), Ahmedabad that the assessee has given gift to Directors of Salsas and Laminates Group and their relatives. It is further noticed that there have been cash deposits of Rs. 16,55,000/- in the bank A/c. No.3052 of Gujarat Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is further observed by the ld. CIT(A) that there have been many cash deposits in the bank account which raises suspicion that the persons are entry provider. In the above background, the Revenue Authorities were of the opinion that the transactions under suspicion are required to be properly examined. On the basis of which, the case was reopened u/s 147(a) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after taking approval from Jt. CIT, Range-3, Ahmedabad. During the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r any purpose. (As per my records from 01.04.2002 to onwards0." 4. Further, assessee was asked to produce following parties for verification of the genuineness of the transaction:- i. Samprati Enterprise ii. Kuresh Aninash iii. Amrapali J. Modi iv. Transal Ink Trading Co. v. Swagat Agency vi. Himansu P. Varia vii. A.S. Gohil viii. Shivam Enterprise But, assessee failed to produce the above parties; however, filed a reply that the notice issued u/s 133(6) have been returned by the postal authority due to the change in the business address of parties as seven year period was a long period and ownership of the most of premises did not belong to parties mentioned in the notice. Therefore, in order to prove the genuineness of the tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o produce eight parties, out of which two were produced and their statements were recorded by Assessing Officer but remaining parties could not be produced for various reasons as stated in assessee's replies dt. 6-12-12 and 12-12-12. The Assessing Officer concluded in his order that the statement of two parties, as produced by the assessee, who confirmed to have done their business with the assessee were disbelieved whereas for rest of the parties, the transactions were not verifiable. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee as an entry provider and the entire cash deposits in said Bank a/c as unexplained. Further, the AR of the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that when two parties had confirmed ....