2017 (9) TMI 1738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(A) Bangalore-2 has erred in passing the Appellate order without the valid jurisdiction notified on the basis of PIN CODE 3. The Learned CIT(A) Bangalor-2 has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,41,141/- being the alleged deficit cash without causing examination of the evidence produced in the form of Reconciled Cash Book, Sales Register and Daily Cash Bills on the basis of which sufficient cash was available with the Appellant to meet the day to day expenditure. 4. The Learned CIT(A) Bangalore-2 has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 81,41,141/- mainly relying upon the Remand Report of the AO who has neither examined the evidence nor provided an op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended before the CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has not given sufficient opportunity and time to the assessee to furnish the details and explanation. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has referred to the assessment year and submitted that the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to furnish the reply on 15.12.2010 and fixed the hearing of the case on 20.12.2010 thereafter the impugned assessment order dt.23.12.2010 was passed. Thus the assessee was not given sufficient time. The assessee has filed petition under Rule 46 of IT Rules before the CIT (Appeals) which was forwarded to the Assessing Officer for examination and comments. The learned Authorised Representative has then submitted that the Assessing Off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....note that the Assessing Officer has stated in the assessment order that on 15.12.2010 the assessee was specifically directed to submit the reply by 20.12.2010. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 23.12.2010 and made addition on account of unexplained receipts. The assessee produced evidence including the new cash book before the CIT (Appeals) under Rule 46 of IT Rules, 1962. The CIT (Appeals) forwarded the evidence produced by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for verification and comments. The assessee also filed the details of the reconciliation of cash book and balances. The Assessing Officer in the remand report stated that the new cash book produced by the assessee as additional evidence is a recasted an....