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

....f the case and in law, the order dated 24.09.2010 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 Ud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to January, 2017 it was found that X-Ray receipts were for 3839 whereas X-Ray consumed 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the search year it was found that the appellant had claimed certain discounts which could not be verified. The AO also observed that during search some persons accepted discount and some did not accepted. Though there was no claim of discount during the year, the AO estimated the discount at Rs. 18,81,845/- and made addition thereof. 7. We also found that the ld CIT(A) observed that in the search year it was observed that discounts was being allowed and in earlier year the receipts were net of discounts. The assessee had changed the method of account of discounts. However, on the basis of conclusion drawn in the search year the CIT(A) observed that disallowance deserves to be made but the same was restricted to 25% of the total addition ....