TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being common in both the appeals, both the matters were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. We shall first take up appeal in ITA No.1265(Bang)/2019 concerning assessment year 2014-15 for adjudication purposes. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under; 1. Assessment is bad in law 1.1. The order dated March 15, 2019 received on April 9. 2019 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4 r(CIT(Appeals)'], Bangalore, be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in completing the proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied by the Appellant in so far as the Appellant was deprived of appropriate opportunity of being heard thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3.3. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and in facts in upholding the Assessing Officer's action in holding that: (a) Appellant filed only basic ledger extracts 'business process outsourcing expenses', 'legal professional expenses' and 'business correspondent and financial advisory expenses'; (b) Appellant has not provided evidence to substantiate the expenses claim; and (c) Appellant has not incurred the expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 4. Short grant of credit in respect of tax deducted at source 4.1. The Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in upholding Assessing Officer's action for levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 7.1 The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in and upholding Assessing Officer's action in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) .of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271B and 271F of the Act 8.1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in and upholding Assessing Officer's action in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B and 271 F of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed return of income and tax audit report for AY 2014-15 within the extended due date of November 30, 2014. 9. Relief ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isory etc. were enquired. The notice was directed to be complied on the very next day i.e. on 28-12-2017. The details on these points were enquired for the first time and therefore, the assessee was in no position to furnish the details in spur of moment. The assessment order was eventually passed making staggering disallowance of expenses by assessment order dated 29-12-2017. 5.1 The ld.AR pointed out that, thus, in effect, no realistic opportunity was given to the assessee to comply with the notice seeking relevant details. It was thus submitted that the order of the AO is vitiated from the violation of principles of natural justice. 5.2 It was pointed out that the matter was carried to the CIT(A) wherein, the relevant details were file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the root of the process of framing assessment. Pertinent here to say, the proceedings before the AO are quasi-judicial proceedings and all the incidences of such proceedings were expected to be observed without laxity before the proceedings were determined. The AO must realize that statutory duties conferred on him is in the nature of a trust. We are unable to visualise as to how an AO can expect compliance of onerous and complex details in few hours from a tax payer. 7.2 When seen in conjunction, it is yet more difficult to perceive that any superior authority expected to rectify such apparent violation in granting due opportunity would refuse to admit the additional evidences moved before him. Needless to say that the spirit Rule 46A ....