SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

u/s 143(3) passed by the Ld. AO in total violation of the guidelines issued by the CSDT vide F. No. 225/26/2006-ITA.II (Pt.), dated 08-09-2010. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has issued the appellate order after expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 20/2003 dated 23-12-2003, as there has been

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits and cash withdrawals ignoring all reasons of taxation. 4. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds

SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer, Nor Any Return Of Income Was Filed. Thereafter, The Ld. Assessing Officer Proceeded To Add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- Under Section 69A & 69C Of The Act.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits and cash withdrawals ignoring all reasons of taxation. 4. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds