2009 (7) TMI 1385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have been framed ex parte under Section 144 on the ground that it was not pressed, whereas, it was not only argued but written submission was also made ? B. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing to treat entire receipt of Rs. 2,97,839 to tax whereas the assessee offered to be assessed at profit at 7.2 per cent on receipt of Rs. 2,97,839 by wrongly distinguishing judgment of Hon'ble High Court of MP in CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP)? C. Whether merely for non-production of any document the authority can proceed ex parte against the assessee ? D. Whether merely on non-production of the account book the return available on record duly audited by the chartered accountant, cannot be l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rs. 2,97,839 was treated as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. A penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) was also initiated. 3. On the basis of aforesaid facts, income of the assessee was assessed as Rs. 4,86,980 after adding disallowances under various heads as mentioned in para 6 of the assessment order and accordingly, demand note was issued. 4. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowing the appeal, reduced disallowances to an across the board figure of Rs. 50,000. However, addition of Rs. 2,97,839 in income of the assessee by the assessing officer was confirmed. 5. On second appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence of Rs. 2,97,839 between the receipt shown in the return filed by the assessee and the actual receipt from Balco derived from TDS certificate enclosed with the return and also from the documents received from Balco in respect of the contract work executed by the assessee firm during the assessment year 2001-02. The appellant/assessee was served with a show-cause notice and called upon to explain the above difference, failing which ex parte assessment was contemplated. However, despite service of notice, the assessee did not come forward to explain the discrepancy and in these circumstances, Rs. 2,97,839 was added in income of the assessee. The argument of the appellant that the total amount of Rs. 2,97,839 could not be added in income o....