2021 (3) TMI 835

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal filed by the assessee read as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the grounds of appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has not been adjudicated. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the order and the grounds which were not taken by the appellant and which were not before him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the allegation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant has not paid the appeal filing fees, not uploaded the penalty order and the demand notice, are factually incorrect and not relevant. 3. Briefly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the business of the assessee but for some other concern, the AO held that the interest attributable to that loan cannot be taken to have been incurred only and exclusively for the business carried out by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO made a disallowance of the interest expenditure of Rs. 6,86,58,949/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 31.08.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) observed inter alia that "the signature of the appellant (Parwinder Kaur) on the letter dated 24.08.2018 and the signature of the same appellant on the letter dated 28.08.2018 are clearly by two different persons. It is obvious that some person has been claimed mischief to take undue and und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ground taken by the appellant is that the Ld. AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 3,30,492/- as rental income is also required to be proved by the appellant only and as it has not been proved the same cannot be admitted. The same is rejected. 21. The fourth ground taken by the appellant is that the Ld. AO was not justified in passing the order without giving proper opportunity of hearing which was necessary in the interest of natural justice has no force as the impugned assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act, 1961 and nothing has been brought on record that the appellant did not receive the adequate opportunity to defend its case. In any case, the appellant has been provided reasonable opportunity of being he....