9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department or the appeals papers filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the DR has made argument without any basis or without any verification. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Ld.DR. In addition to the above the Ld.AR has argued that the assessee is a house wife carrying on small time business of sarees and completely dependent on her husband. AO completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 by issue of notices, in spite of the fact that the assessee is carrying on the business and the AO is vested with powers u/s 133A, no such exercise was done by the AO. Though the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO, the AO also did not take any action for such non response which shows that the AO was also very considerate for the hapless position of the assessee. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that if at all the case is to be remitted back to the file of the AO, the Bench must consider for imposing some costs against the assessee for her irresponsible attitude. From the order of the AO, we have noticed that the AO did not take any such recourse for non response, though the AO is vested with the powers u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taken up the case for scrutiny and issued the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and called for various details by issue notices. Even though the notices were served, there was no response from the assessee. Time and again, the AO made all out efforts and given sufficient opportunities to the assessee to collect the necessary information, but the assessee did not furnish the details called for by the AO. As per the balance sheet filed by the assessee, the AO found that there were sundry creditors outstanding as on 31.03.2012 to the extent of ₹ 1,24,00,000/- for which the assessee did not furnish the confirmation letters. Source of purchase of the properties mentioned in the balance sheet were stated to be out of the unsecured advances / loans taken from sundry creditors. Since, the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation letters establishing the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors, the AO treated the outstanding balances of sundry creditors as unexplained, brought to tax and accordingly made the addition of ₹ 1,24,00,000/- to the return of income. The AO also made the addition of ₹ 1,25,000/- which was declared as agricultural income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposed for admission of additional evidences and argued that in spite of giving repeated opportunities by the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish any information before the AO or the CIT(A). Referring to paper book Sl.no.2 to 21, she submitted that the assessee has certified that the documents at Sl.2 to 21 are within the knowledge of the Ld.AO or the Ld.CIT(A) which is false. She further stated that the Ld.CIT(A) in para No.6 of Ld.CIT(A) s order stated that the assessee has not furnished the details. Therefore, she argued that the assessee has furnished the false paper book with wrong certification and there was no mention in the assessment order with regard to submission of the said documents. Therefore, the Ld.DR argued that the assessee has no case for admission of additional evidence, hence, requested to reject the assessee s petition for admission of additional evidence and there is no case for remitting the matter back to the file of the AO. 5.1. Responding to the argument of the Ld.DR, the Ld.AR submitted that Sl.2 to 21 are within the knowledge of the AO / CIT(A), hence the same was certified correctly. The Ld.AR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the documents are not within the knowledge of AO or CIT(A) since the documents in Sl.No.2 to 7 are nothing but the orders of the department or the appeals papers filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the Ld.DR has made argument without any basis or without any verification. Therefore, we reject the contention of the Ld.DR. In addition to the above the Ld.AR has argued that the assessee is a house wife carrying on small time business of sarees and completely dependent on her husband. Though the AO completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 by issue of notices, in spite of the fact that the assessee is carrying on the business and the AO is vested with powers u/s 133A, no such exercise was done by the AO. Though the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO, the AO also did not take any action for such non response which shows that the AO was also very considerate for the hapless position of the assessee. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR argued that if at all the case is to be remitted back to the file of the AO, the Bench must consider for imposing some costs against the assessee for her irresponsible attitude. From the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
