9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from consultancy charges for marketing and management, interest and dividends. The assessee filed the return of income declaring income at Rs. 68,657 but the ITO did not accept it and thereby made inter alia additions of Rs. 2,000 out of entertainment expenses, Rs. 1,000 out of conveyance. He made disallowance of Rs. 500 out of telephone expenses on account of personal use. All these additions were agreed additions agreed upon by the assessee's representative Shri K.L. Murthy. The assessee being aggrieved for these additions made appeal before the AAC, who decided the appeal as ex parte and confirmed the additions referred to above on the ground that the same were agreed additions, based on an agreement entered into by the represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no material on record to prove that Shri Murthy has acted against the instructions of the assessee in agreeing to the impugned additions. When this is so, then we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned additions are on agreement with the assessee. 5. Now we decide the issue that whether there was service of the notice for the hearing of the appeal before the AAC. It is an admitted position that the notice of hearing was issued on the assessee on 17th February, 1981 and the date of hearing was fixed on 27th February, 1981. It is also admitted position that this notice was served on the assessee on 10th March, 1981 which date is after the date of hearing fixed, i.e. 22nd July, 1981. Thus, on these facts, Shri Daruwala contends that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Shri Daruwala cannot be accepted in view of the fact that atleast if such application was not accepted by the office of the AAC, then when the learned representative for the assessee is making this contention, then atleast, there should be an affidavit to this effect, which is not there on the record even at this stage. Furthermore, even if the office acted as stated above, then it was the duty of the assessee to appear before the AAC and present an application stating therein this fact as well as the fact that the notice of hearing of the appeal was served on the assessee on 10th March, 1981 and to prove these facts, the assessee should have filed the affidavit and if not, then the documentary evidence, namely, the envelope containing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
