2023 (10) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without allowing the appellant any proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte by stating that the assessee have not complied to hearing notice(s) in spite of the fact, assessee have duly requesting adjournment on 29.11.2022. 4. For that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law since the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues ground wise in respect of the grounds raised by the appellant in the Memo of Appeal. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law since the order passed is not any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed necessary audited accounts of the assessee for the assessment year in question but subsequently, the assessee did not appear before the AO, therefore, he framed assessment order u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 1,73,40,926/- from the business and by doing so it was calculated @8% of the total turnover of Rs. 21,67,61,571/-. The ld. AO while doing so he did not rejected the books of account filed by the assessee and framed the assessment at Rs. 1,74,96,720/- which further included an addition of Rs. 1,55,791/- income from other sources on account of interest income. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these grounds since sufficient opportunity was given by both the lower authorities but the assessee failed to comply before them and therefore, ground no. 1 to 5 are dismissed. 8. As regards, ground no. 6 and 7, it is contended that both the lower authorities erred in estimating the profit @ 10% of the turnover without rejecting books of accounts of assessee and secondly net profit rate applied @ 8% is excessive. We are aware of the fact that both the impugned orders are ex-parte but since the issue is only with regard to estimation of profits and since books of accounts of the assessee are regularly audited and have been accepted by the revenue authorities in the past from setting aside the issue on merits to the lower authority and de....