RAMKISHAN AGRAWAL,ROURKELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ROURKELA

Shri Binod Agarwal, Binod Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not provide the remand report and consequently the same has been recorded by the ld JCIT(A) in para 5 & 6 of his order. It was the further submission that ld JCIT(A) having been accepted the part contention of the assessee ought to have accepted the entire evidences produced. It was the submission that the addition is liable to be deleted.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of ld JCIT(A) for readjudication after obtaining the remand from the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of ld JCIT(A) clearly shows that the ld JCIT(A) has called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the ld JCIT(A) has specifically brought on record that the remand report has not been provided by the Assessing Officer. Ld JCIT(A) without doing any follow up action has proceeded to dispose of the appeal. This being so, as it is evident that the evidences have been produced before the ld JCIT(A) and ld JCIT(A) has found it fit and called for a remand report, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai under NFAC for readjudication after obtaining the remand report from the Assessing Officer.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpoises.