TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts by holding that when AO resorting to the provisions of section 145(3) is bound to pass the assessment order under section 144 of the I.T, Act, 1961 but which is not in conformity of provisions contained in section 145(3) wherein it has been prescribed that ''where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. In the section 145(3) the statute has used the word 'may' and 'in the manner provided in section 14'. 3. That the appellant craves to leave, add, alter and amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 4. The CIT( Appeals)- That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside/ cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored." 4. The grounds raised in the assessee's appeal read as under: "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f unsecured loans and sundry deposits u/s 69/69C. • Rs.43,925/- on account of unaccounted investment/unaccounted expenditure u/s 69 and 69C. • Rs. 60,00,000/- by treating it as income of the appellant u/s 69A. • Rs.31,43,267/- by treating it as income of the appellant u/s 69, 69A and 69C. • Rs.4,81,98,697/- on account of loans and advances by treating it as income of the appellant u/s 69, 69A. • Rs. 8,27,35,779/- on account of sundry creditors by treating it as income of the appellant u/s 69, 69A. • Rs.12,67,45,295/- on account of sundry creditors. • Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses payable. • Rs.3,38,748/- on account of administrative expenses. • Rs.20,98,892/- on account of interest paid. • Rs.27,11,173/- on account of overseas commission. • Rs.2,02,327/- on account of various other expenses. • Rs.98,10,000/- on account of share application money u/s 68 and 69A. • Rs.4,11,98,090/- on account of advances made to various parties u/s 69. • Rs.7,79,78,186/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. 8. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, on 08/01/2013 a letter was received from the appellant that it had authorized Shri Sanjay Kumar to submit a letter to this office and another letter was filed by the appellant and not the Id. counsel claiming that the Id. counsel of the appellant M/s. R.R.A. Tax India was busy with compiling the information regarding the above said appeal. It was further claimed that in view of many interlinked information to be provided the case should be adjourned to 07/02/2013. The appeal was filed by the appellant on 10/07/2012 against an order passed on 11/06/2012 through a duly appointed counsel and the appellant had sufficient time to enclose whatever documents it consider necessary to support its grounds of appeal. Till 08/01/2013 no hearing had taken place and no documents were called for by this office. It is therefore difficult to appreciate that the Id. counsel of the appellant which is a firm of advocates and C.As. was busy compiling various documents regarding the pending appeal. It is all the more difficult to accept that this claim about the Id. counsel being busy with compiling the information regarding appeal was made by the appellant and not by the Id. counsel. While the Id. c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The case was adjourned for 05/05/2014 and on that date Miss Ankita Arora, CA asked for an adjournment. The case was adjourned to 20/05/2014 when Sh. Kailash Mittal, Advocate appeared and filed a rejoinder. Case was partly heard and adjourned to 04/06/2014 when Miss Prachi Kohli appeared and asked for adjournment which was granted and case was fixed for 12/06/2014. However, there was no compliance on that date. Case was again fixed for 18/12/2014, 26/12/2014, 16/03/2015, 24/03/2015 but on none of these dates there was any response. 5. The case was fixed for 03/06/2015 whereupon a letter was filed in the dak stating that the written submissions has already been filed and therefore the appeal may be decided based upon the written submissions. After the change of the incumbent in the office of CIT(A)-1, Noida the case was again fixed for 21/01/2016. However, again there was no response. The case was again fixed for 26/02/2016 and again there was no response. Neither any one appeared nor any request for adjournment was made. 6. From the conduct of proceedings over last about four years it is clear that the appellant was never interested in getting its appeal decided on merits and ....