AMAR DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction. The assessee has followed project completion method for determining the total income. Accordingly, it filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer, however, completed the assessment by determining the total income at

The Learned AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish necessary details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, even though the assessee has furnished the detailed explanations in the form of written submission. However, the Assessing Officer has passed the order without considering the written submission. He submitted that the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A), since the notices were issued to the e-mail of the earlier consultant and the said earlier consultant did not inform the assessee about the notices of hearing. Accordingly learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

The Learned AR submitted that the necessary details have been filed before the Tribunal now and accordingly prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted. He further submitted that these details require examination at the end of the Assessing Officer and accordingly prayed that all the three issues may be restored to the file of AO for examining these issues afresh.

The Learned DR, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee did not cooperate with the learned CIT(A) and hence the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte.

We heard the rival contention and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by learned AR, we admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since these additional evidences require

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.