SHREENATH CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of order passed by the L.d. AO though it is void & illegal as no notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity o1 of order passed by the Ld. AO U/S 144 of the Act as it is bad and illegal by not considering the filed return of income and response to notice U7S 142(1) of the Act provided by appellant.

The Ld. C(T(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 85,68,500/- as cash deposited.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs..3,00, 17,200/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.

On going through the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has awarded five opportunities of hearing to the assessee. In pursuance to the same, the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents and repeatedly sought adjournments. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Since the primary adjudication of ground of appeal has not been taken by Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall submit all the submission/documents and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.