9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maharashtra etc. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 26.3.2003. In response to notice issued under section 158BC(a)(i) of the Act the assessee filed return of income for the block period declaring undisclosed income at Rs. Nil. The A.O issued notice under section 143(2) dated 16.7.2004. During the course of present assessment proceedings it was observed by the AO that the assesseee preferred an application under section 245D(1) of the Act before the Settlement Commission, Mumbai on 27.1.2005. The Settlement Commission, Mumbai vide order dated 27.3.2007 however, rejected the application of the assessee. On receipt of the order of the Settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjournment of the case and keeping in view that the appeal is high demand appeal has to be disposed of on priority passed ex-parte order on the basis of material available on record. The ld. CIT(A) while observing that the AO has based his additions on the basis of seized material and the appellant has been given adequate opportunity to explain the notings and also keeping in view that the appellant had failed to submit satisfactory explanation at the assessment state and also at the appellate stage, confirmed the order of the AO on all the issues and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.In Ground No.1 to 3 the assessee has challenged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has completed the assessment within 16 days i.e. on 1.6.2007 from the date of last hearing of the case on 16.5.07. We further find that despite repeated opportunities given to the assessee, by the ld. CIT(A) there was no appearance put in by the assessee and, hence, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. We do agree that the assessee does not deserve any clemency yet, the matter being quite contentious and the amount involved being quite high, it would be better if we have the benefit of the enquiries and wisdom of the lower authorities. This being so and keeping in view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by the AO, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
