TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.CIT(A) has gross erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without appreciating that the notice fixing the date of hearing was received by appellant after the specified date and that the request for adjournment has been diligently filed which had been neither impliedly rejected by him before passing the ex-parte appellate order nor it was mentioned that the notice conferred final opportunity. It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone and the Ld.CIT(A) may please be directed to decide the appeal on merits. GROUND NO. II On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,83,43,683 made by the Learned Assessing Officer ("the Ld.AO") being alleged excess stock found during survey as a result of physical verification treating the same as an unexplained investment as per the provisions of section 69 of the Act which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, dehors any incriminating seized material and not in accordance with the provisions of law. The Ld.CIT(A) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utiny hence, the Order u/s.143(3) passed in absence of mandatory previous administrative approval from the Ld. Pr.CIT as directed by the Board's Instruction in respect of Limited Scrutiny 'CASS' assessment deserves to be quashed and declared a nullity since, the Order has been passed in violation of Board's binding instructions, accordingly, the Assessment Order is bad in law & legally unsustainable hence, it is earnestly prayed that the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act may please be quashed and cancelled in limine. (II) That the Assessment Order framed under section 143(3) of the Act Dated 15th December, 2017 by the Ld. AO and further, affirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) Dated 7th December, 2018 is void ab initio, invalid, illegal, barred by limitation and bad in law in as much as the reference to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer was not in accordance with the Board's binding Instruction No.3/2016 Dtd.10.03.2016 accordingly, the time limit to pass the Order expired on 31.12.2016 hence, the extension of time limit to 31.12.2017 taking recourse to section 153 of the Act was invalid, bad in law and hence, the Assessment Order is barred by limitation &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r raising these at assessment stage. Whatever objection were raised during valuation process those have been taken care of. Thus, the appellant has no plausible explanation to the difference in the stock. Therefore, the addition made by the A.O is hereby sustained. 3.0. Appeal is dismissed." 5. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee company had assailed the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his multi-facet contentions, viz. (i) that the CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the basis of perverse observations; (ii) that as the A.O vide notice u/s. 143(2) dated 25.04.2016 had selected the case of the assessee company for "limited scrutiny"; therefore, the addition of the unaccounted investment/unaccounted sales made by the A.O not being an issue, for which the case of the assessee was so selected for scrutiny assessment, the additions made by him on the said count could not be sustained and were liable to be struck down for want of valid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial fact had disposed off the appeal on the very next date i.e. on 07.12.2018. The Ld. AR submitted that based on the aforesaid facts the assessee company for no fault on its part had remained divested of an opportunity for prosecuting its case before the CIT(Appeals). 8. Apropos the notice dated 25.09.2018 that was issued by the office of CIT(Appeals) intimating the assessee company about fixation of the hearing of the appeal for 15.10.2018, the Ld. AR submitted that the observation of the CIT(Appeals) on the said issue were absolutely incorrect and perverse. Elaborating his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had on 15.10.2018 filed with the CIT(Appeals) a letter requesting for adjournment, Page 5 of APB. Backed by the aforesaid fact, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee company had duly complied with the aforesaid notice dated 25.09.2018 which was issued by the office of the CIT(Appeals), therefore, it was absolutely incorrect on his part in observing that the assessee had failed to comply with the same. Summing up his contentions, the Ld. AR submitted that now when the assessee company had complied with the notice issued by the office of the CIT(A....