9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 24.09.2010 and on the said date the accountant of the assessee appeared and a request was made for adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the contents of that request, there may be some compelling reasons for seeking the adjournment but nothing is mentioned in the impugned order. It is also noticed that the case was fixed for hearing by the ld. CIT(A) on 24.09.2010 and by rejecting the request of the assessee for adjournment the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2010. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed an appropriate & proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “Audi Alteram Pertam”. Thus we deem it appropriate to set aside the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive. 3. That without prejudice to the above grounds, the following additions/disallowances as made by the Assessing Officer towards the assessable income are arbitrary, unjust, illegal and at any rate, without prejudice, very excessive and the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has without any judicious application of mind confirmed the same. (a) ₹ 1,21,845/- out of export promotion (Foreign travel) expenses. (b) ₹ 1,73,761/- out of development charges. (c) ₹ 15,000/- out of festival expenses. (d) ₹ 41,205/- out of telephone and fax expenses for alleged personal use of the partners by disallowing the same @ 1/10th. (e) ₹ 1,07,518/- being 1/8th of car repair and maintenance and depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t relief to the assessee and sustained the additions partly. Now the assessee is in appeal against the sustenance of the additions while the department is in appeal against the relief allowed to the assessee. 7. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have not allowed proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He drew our attention towards page no. 1 of the asessee s paper book which is the copy of the order sheet entries and submitted that the AO asked the assessee to explain how the sales of ₹ 2,17,93,298/- was made when the total opening stock of raw material was ₹ 1,69,89,820/-. It was stated that the AO passed the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.18 crore was made when the total opening stock of raw material was ₹ 1.70 crore and himself mentioned that the reply regarding disproportionate sales and purchases was filed on the same date. In the present case, the AO passed the assessment order on 28.12.2007, so it is difficult to believe that on the same day the assessee furnished all the details which were asked by the AO and those were properly considered while passing the assessment order, Therefore, in our opinion, proper opportunity of being heard was not provided by the AO to the assessee before passing the assessment order dated 28.12.2007. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) also passed the impugned order without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2009. Again, the same was adjourned to 07.07.2009 on the request of the counsel of the appellant. None attended on that date. The CIT(A), Karnal requested the assessee to produce books of accounts alongwith related documents and vouchers and the proceedings were fixed on 28.07.2009 and then to 20.08.2009. Sh. Anil Goel, Accountant of the appellant firm attended the proceedings on 20.08.2009 and on his request the same was adjourned to 31.08.2009, 22.09.2009 and then to 5.10.2009. Fresh opportunity was allowed after joining the undersigned, per this office notice dated 30.08.2010 and the proceedings were fixed for 24.09.2010. Sh. Anil Goel Accountant attended the proceedings on that date and again requested for adjournment. The request of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24.09.2010 and by rejecting the request of the assessee for adjournment the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2010. 10. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed an appropriate proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim Audi Alteram Pertam . We, therefore, by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and not to seek undue or unwarranted adjournments. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
