PALMON EXPORTS KASEZ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-22(2)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

2 (A.Y. 2013-14) Palmon Exports Kasez 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 14560219/- under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of RS.47,06,503/- on account of cash purchase on mere assumption that assessee not been able to substantiate the purchases.

4. Without Prejudice to Ground No. 3, On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that even as per assumption of Ld. AO also addition cannot be made in AY 2013-14 as the papers relied by the Ld. AO not pertaining to the A.Y. 2013-14

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of Interest under section 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961

7. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, on a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear. We have considered the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.