9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses claimed - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Addition was deleted by CIT(A) on this basis that the assessee deserves the benefit of the telescoping against addition confirmed by CIT(A) of Rs.30.90 lacs. Under these facts no interference is called for in the order of CIT(A) on this issue also. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the revenue is also rejected. Against revenue. - I.T(SS). No. 92/ Ahd/2006, IT(SS)No.116/Ahd/2006 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2013 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri A. K. Garodia,JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Jasbir S Chouhan, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A. K. Garodia, AM:- These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for the block period form 01.04.1989 to 16.11.1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference." In the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Limited; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal was filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing, nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers , treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the date of search. In view of this, the addition made of Rs.27,68,899/- of undisclosed income on account of suppression of closing stock is deleted." 9. We find that this addition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) on this basis that this amount of closing stock as on 31.03.1999 cannot be added separately because this is appearing as opening stock as on 01.04.1999 and it has been considered for working out amount of sales from 1/.4.99 to the date of search and addition on this aspect of Rs.27.58 lacs was duly confirmed by him and, therefore, no separate addition on account of this difference in value of stock is called for. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
