9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was not attending the matter. In regard to assessment year 2009-10, it is the allegation of the assessee despite assessee producing documentary evidence, the AO has not examined properly. In entirety of the facts, going through the case records, despite opportunities given by the lower authorities, the assessee could not avail the opportunities without any reason. No alternative except to set aside the matter to the file of the AO in both the years and the AO will reframe the assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also impose cost on assessee for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon ble High Court of Madras. In term of the above, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantiate the opening balance as explained in the foregoing paragraph. In the absence of any documentary evidence, I am left with no opinion but to confirm the order of the Assessing Officer which is well reason and based on documents available on record. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the appellant is dismissed and the Assessing Officer order is confirmed." The ld.counsel stated that the only issue in assessment year 2008- 09 is as regards to the addition of opening capital of Rs. 30,24,865/- but the AO has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and framed ex-parte assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act and the relevant findings given by AO in assessment year 2008-09 reads as under:- "AS there was no resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the reliance by authorised representative on this return to substantiate the cost of acquisition at Rs. 70,00,000/- is not acceptable at all. Moreover, the cost of the property on the date of purchase in the year 1990- 91 was only at Rs. 59,080/-. It is beyond the comprehension. The authorised representative has submitted acquisition cost at Rs. 70,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer has observed that the argument of the assessee was without basis and hence cannot be accepted. The computation of long term capital gain as made by the Assessing Officer must therefore to sustain and the arguments advanced by the authorised representative and has to be rejected. 2.3 As regards to the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- being receivables, the CIT(A) dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing documentary evidence, the AO has not examined properly. In entirety of the facts, going through the case records, despite opportunities given by the lower authorities, the assessee could not avail the opportunities without any reason. Hence, we have no alternative except to set aside the matter to the file of the AO in both the years and the AO will reframe the assessment after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also impose cost on assessee for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon'ble High Court of Madras. In term of the above, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and allow these two appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. 5. In the resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
