2020 (3) TMI 1476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II Udaipur u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law & illegal. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the order of Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur, passed U/s 144 rws 144/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without giving reasonable opportunity being heard to the appellant therefore ex parte order passed by the Ld. AO is against the natural justice therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in granting relief of Rs. 75,392/- only out ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsumed was 4530, and as such there was excess consumption of 691 films. On these hypothesis it was observed that Xrays receipt in total was 3.87%. On these facts for the search year for financial year 2017-18 suppression of receipts was estimated at Rs. 3,87,7301-. The CIT(A) allowed deduction for 3% on account of wastages and allowed relief of Rs. 75,392/- and sustained balance addition of Rs.3,12,338/-. 4. We also found from the record that the contention of the assessee is that the entire basis for addition was not justified. Based on the X-rays done during the 4 months period from October, 2016 to January, 2017, cannot be any basis for the addition in the year. Even various factors of wastages had not been considered, error of technici....