9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Nand Kumar." The result of above addition was that income was determined at Rs. 1,86,890 against Rs. 35,580 returned by the assessee. 2. We have heard both the parties at length in this appeal. Shri Kohli, learned counsel for the assessee contended that CIT (A) disposed of the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The notices of hearing were not sent at the place mentioned in Form No. 35. These submissions were opposed by learned Departmental Representative. We have no record before us to contradict finding recorded by CIT (A) in para I of his order that assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by him and deliberately avoided the proceedings. in this background, we are unable to hold that CIT (A) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of low withdrawals of partners was also challenged as unsustainable as no basis for addition is reflected in the assessment order. Shri Kohli also drew our attention to copy of letter of Assessing Officer dated 3rd March, 1986 and assessee's reply to said letter dated 11 -3-1986. 4. Smt. Sinha, learned D.R. opposed submissions advanced on behalf of assessee. She argued that adequate opportunities were provided to assessee to prove its case before the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) but assessee deliberately absented himself and withheld the relevant information. The revenue authorities, therefore, were left with no choice but to draw adverse inferences. She strongly objected to the production of copies of accounts of different parties to sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the books of account. Besides, it is settled law that books of account are part of record and not fresh or additional evidence as contended by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Ex parte assessment was not made for failure on the part of the assessee to produce books of account but was made for not filing further evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, see no good ground to accept objection raised on behalf of the Department not to take into account entries in the books. 6. Smt. Sinha then contended that Assessing Officer and on appeal CIT(A) in the given facts of the case were justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee. We have no quarrel with the general proposition that where relevant evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show that assessee did not make payments exceeding Rs. 2,500 on a single day. In case of two payments only advances were made which were not claimed as expenditure. The credits in accounts of partners were mere transfer entries without actual introduction of cash. All these facts are revealed in the entries in the books of account. The Assessing Officer did not properly look at accounts to draw his conclusions in spite of the fact that assesses in written reply had contended that there was no violation of provision of section 40A(3). Likewise addition under section 68 of Income-tax Act in respect of credits in account of parties as made by the Assessing Officer is unjustified. The third addition of RS. 20,000 for alleged low household wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
