2022 (3) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the A.O. making addition of Rs. 1,23,20,000/- under sec. 68 without properly appreciating the facts and evidences filed and Summarily rejecting the contentions of the assessee by relying on the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Nipun Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 30 taxmann 292 (Delhi), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) and Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, Kolkata (Calcutta HC) when the facts of the said case were quite different from the case in hand. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. whereas the assessment itself bad in law since the noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to submit that though, the assessee had furnished all the required documents but the Assessing Officer insisted for the personal appearance of the director of the assessee-company. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the evidences furnished by the assessee rather made the impugned addition for non-appearance of the director of the assessee-company. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the director of the company could not appear at that time before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee had already furnished the required evidences which the Assessing Officer was supposed to examine and ar....