2018 (5) TMI 1975

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceedings. 2. The enhancement of income by Rs. 33,29,52,203/- by CIT(A) is without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhancement of income by a sum of Rs. 4,94,001/- as negative reserves and surplus is wrong. 4. The addition u/s. 68 of the Act on account of short term borrowings aggregating to Rs. 12,75,50,000/- is wrong and is opposed to the mandate of section 68 of the Act. 5. The observation of CIT(A) "there being no explanation for the same or the explanation given before the AO being unsatisfactory" is opposed to evidences on record and the addition of Rs. 12,75,50,000/- may please be deleted. 6. The finding of the CIT(A) that "the appellant has no land owned by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idences for substantiating his claim, therefore, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after considering all the evidences filed by the Assessee and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused records, especially the impugned order. I find considerable cogency in the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed the exparte order without properly considered the submissions of the assessee. I further note that assessee has filed all the necessary documentary evidences for s....