M/S. INTARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ORDER PER S.K. YADAV, J.M. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT(A) inter alia on the following grounds have been raised in the appeals. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order ignoring that the i. assessee company was prevented by sufficient cause in compliance to the notice of hearing and deserved further opportunity in view of principle of natural justice. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the ii. disallowance of Rs. 6,71,71,498/- made by the ld. AO alleging prior period ITA Nos. 1225 & 1226-Del-2017 2 expenses which is highly unjustifiable, uncalled for and bad in law. i. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order disposing the appeal of the assessee alleging the notice remained unserved with remarks "Left Without Address" and alleged on the presumption that assessee had no attention to pursue the appeal which is against the principle of natural justice and is bad in law. ii. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order ignoring that the assessee company was prevented by sufficient cause in compliance to the last notice dated 20.10.2016 and deserved further opportunity in view of principle of natural justice. iii. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant company by passing an ex-parte order disposing the appeal of the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice. iv. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.94,29,964 made by Ld/- AO on account of unclaimed liabilities written back in fixed assets schedule, which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. v. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by Ld/- AO on account of advances to suppliers written-off amounting to Rs. 78,47,389 being business advance under Section 37(1) of the Act, which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. vi. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the disallowance made by the AO on account of 'Inventory written off amounting to Rs.7,95,993 debited in Profit & Loss Account, which is highly arbitrary, uncalled for and bad-in- law. vii. The Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the disallowance of interest cost amounting to Rs.2,54,310 on borrowed funds, alleging that the borrowed funds are attributable to loans & advances given to its associate concerns and further alleging the absence of nexus between own funds viz-a-viz loans and advances made to its sister concerns, which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad-in-law. viii. The Ld/- AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) of Income-Tax Act, 1961, which is highly unjustified and bad in law. ix. The assessee craves the right to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal

2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the orders of the learned CIT(A) with the submission that the learned CIT(A) had decided these