TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-38 New Delhi, erred in not giving a sufficient opportunity to be heard and passing an ex-parte order even after the appellant attended the matter from time to time and informed the CIT(A) that the registered office and PAN had been shifted to Mumbai and requested for transfer of Jurisdiction to Mumbai. 2. On the facts of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 77,23,796 made by the AO on an ad-hoc basis by computing the net profit rate after depreciation as 24.72%. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2015 at 11:30 AM. No one attended on behalf of appellant on 19,08.2015. Notice u/s 250 was issued on 11.09.2015 for hearing on 24.09.2015 at 10:30 AM, on which date no one appeared on behalf of Appellant. On 06.11.2015 another notice u/s 250 was issued fixing hearing on 19.11.2015 at 10:30 AM in response to which an adjournment petition was filed by appellant. At the request of appellant case was adjourned by notice u/s 250 dated 27.01.2016 to 28.03.2016 at 10:30 AM. In the mean time, the case was transferred to CIT (A)-38 as stated in Para-1 above. This case was received in the office of the undersigned on 09.03.2016. Notice u/s 250(1) dated 23.03.2016 was issued by this office fixing hearing on 28.03.2016 at 11:00 AM on which date submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.12.2016. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant on 26.12,2016. However, no one has appeared till date in compliance to final notice dated 15.12.2016. It should be noted that this office cannot grant inordinately lengthy adjournments on varied pleas and is constrained to decide the appeal without further delay. 2.2 It is to be noted that the appellant has deliberately adopted dilatory tactics while representing this case. Despite being given numerous opportunities to represent its own case, appellant has refused to do so for reasons best known to itself Therefore, this case is being decided ex-parte. Nevertheless, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal is being decided on the basis of the assessment order and the material ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incurred by the assessee company like man power, depreciation, supplies, services etc., plus an additional amount equal to 10% of such costs. The copy of service agreement entered with AE was also filed before the ld. AO. The assessee also pleaded that its income is exempt u/s.10A of the Act and therefore, there was no motive to charge price less than the arm's length price from its AE. 3.2. The ld. AO observed that the entire exports of the assessee was made to its AE and hence, the service agreement cannot be accepted as a concrete basis for arriving at the conclusion that cost plus 10% mark up would be at arm's length. He observed that the net profit after depreciation declared by the assessee was 24.72%. When the assessee's own net p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the ld. CIT(A) had merely reproduced the submissions of the assessee and the contentions of the ld. AO and upheld the action of the ld. AO without giving any finding whatsoever on merits from his side. The relevant operating portion of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- "4.4 The assessee's contentions have been held to be not tenable by the assessing officer on the reasoning stated in the assessment order and hence he has computed the Net Profit (after depreciation) rate at 24.72%. Findings and reasons; for decision 4,1 The only ground of appeal is general in nature, cryptic and is not accompanied by a separate statement of fact. Not only has appellant not prosecuted the appeal, it has deliberately adopted dilatory tact....