9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary evidence to support and substantiate the said claim was not produced by the assessee-company. It appears that the CIT(Appeals), however, did not give any opportunity to the assessee to produce the relevant supporting evidence to substantiate its claim and rejected the claim of the assessee without giving such opportunity. There is thus a violation of principle of natural justice by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and keeping in view the same, we consider it fair and just to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(Appeals) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the fringe benefit value and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the business of manufacturing of electric cables, conductors and wires galvanize steel tapes etc. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 09.01.2009 disclosing total fringe benefit value at ₹ 1,32,01,699/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company was required by the Assessing Officer to furnish item-wise calculation chart of fringe benefit value, which was generally available with the Tax Audit Report. The assessee, however, failed to furnish the same. From the perusal of the details of fringe benefit value, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed a total expenditure of ₹ 579.86 lakhs under the head travelling and conveyance , but there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge benefit directly or deemingly to any person. This contention raised on behalf of the assesee-company was not found acceptable by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in the absence of any supporting vouches or documentary evidence produced by the assessee to support and substantiate the same. He accordingly proceeded to confirm both the additions made by the Assessing Officer to the fringe benefit value under the head conveyance and tour and travelling . Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee-company. There was a similar non-compliance on the part of the assessee-company when this appeal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
