MANORANJAN MOHAPATRA,ADASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the AO had initiated the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the limited purpose of verifying the issue that there was substantial cash deposit in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that the AO went beyond the issue and all the details were submitted before the AO. It was the submission that in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had filed various evidences which had not been considered by the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 of his order was erroneous insofar as substantial proof in the form of audited profit and loss account, balance sheet, written submissions and orders of the appellate authorities, which were filed in the course of hearing, were not considered by the ld. CIT(A).

In reply, ld.Sr.DR submitted that the documents produced by the ld. AR was only that some evidences had been filed before the ld. CIT(A). What is the nature of those documents have not been shown. It was the submissions that the ld. CIT(A) has considered all the issues and the assessee has not been able to substantiate the written submission filed before the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no corroborative evidence have been filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim. In fact, though the ld. CIT(A) mentions that submissions have been made by the appellant, there is no mention that what are the submissions made by the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) has only extracted the statement of facts, grounds of appeal

filed by the assessee and the assessment order and nothing else. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are required for readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A).