SANGAMESHWAR TRADING COMPANY,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GADAG

BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s. Sangameshwar Trading Company, Yelamali Plot, The ITO, Kashi Vishwanath Nagar, Near APMC, vs. Ward – II, Post: Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. PAN: AAHFS7916G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. Tax effect relating to eachGround of Grounds of Appeal appeal (see note below)

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) is illegal, baseless and opposed to the factsof the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Rs. 11,16,878 (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of 35,88,888 towardsinterest expenditure.

3. The learned CITAppeals has confirming an addition of Rs.25,600 as income declared during survey.

4. The assessee prays leave to add any more grounds of appealbefore or at the time of hearing. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 11,16,878

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. It is also submitted that as noted by CIT (A) in Para 3 of his order, six dates of hearing were fixed by CIT (A) and the assessee could not make compliance. In this regard, he submitted that on pages 52 & 53 of paper book is the affidavit of Shri Jayadev Totappa Yelamali, one of the partners of the assessee firm in which he explained that he has appeared before CIT (A) along with his auditor and presented the case of the assessee and written submissions were also filed. It is also stated in the affidavit that ld. CIT (A) said that no new evidences will be