9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) has challenged the order dt. 26-8-2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench A, Jaipur (hereafter referred to as the ITAT ),whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal being ITA No. 1015/3P/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06 of the appellant-assessee. 2. The case of the appellant-assessee in a nuts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-assessee being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the order dt. 26.3.2010 partly allowed the said appeal, reducing the trading addition from Rs. 16,33,656 to Rs. 12,29,950. Against the said order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant-assessee had preferred further appeal being no. ITA NO. 1015/JP/2010 before the Income Tax Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was summoned by the Assessing officer behind the back of the appellant and therefore the addition of Rs. 6,40,500 against the account of said shri Ram Khilari sharma was also not justified, which has been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as per section 260A of the said Act, an appeal would lie to the High Court against the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ram Khilari Sharma, it appears that the assessing officer had given as many as 9 opportunities on different dates during the period of 15 months to the assessee. The result of various inquiries was also brought to the notice of the appellant from time to time by the assessing officer and he was asked to furnish explanation in respect of the same, however he did not furnish the complete detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
