9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuality the written submissions were considered to be not sufficient to support the claim, an opportunity of being heard as per law ought to have been given. Thus in the face of the fact that the grievance of the assessee still persists the impugned order is set aside to the file fo the Ld.CIT(A) directing the said authority to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. - I.T.A. No. 2692/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2017 - Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial Member Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 18.02.2016 of CIT(A)-19, New Delhi pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have submitted that he has already declared and offered for profit ₹ 1,48,407/- on gross receipts of ₹ 29,04,253/-. In view of the fact that the said claim was not before the Assessing Officer, the matter was referred to the Assessing Officer. As per the Remand Report quoted in page 4 para 9 of the CIT(A) s order, the Assessing Officer in the Remand proceedings required the assessee to produce his books of accounts alongwith supporting documents on 04.11.2015; thereafter another notice as per record was served on 06/11/2015 giving the date of compliance as 13/11/2015. The assessee instead appeared on 15/12/2015 but merely sought an adjournment. As a result thereof the hearings stood adjourned to 30/12/2015. On the said date, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments were towards repayment of loans taken from HSBC. Thus, the assessee being based in Delhi who had not claimed any trading activity in Mumbai and who had not even disclosed this Bank Account and despite opportunity had failed to substantiate its claim in the face of the multiple bank accounts maintained wherein the cash deposit stood unexplained, the addition made was confirmed. 5. The Ld.Sr.DR relied upon the impugned order and submitted that the addition deserves to be confirmed. However, on query qua the specific grievance of the assessee as per the grounds that the written submissions stated to have been filed on behalf of the assessee were not taken into consideration by the CIT(A) he was unable to show where these have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
