MAHESH KUMAR AMBHAGOLE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-72(3) , NEW DELHI

I have heard Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, learned Authorized Representative of the assessee and Shri Om Parkash, learned Departmental Representative.

The basic grievance of the assessee is, he was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard either by the Assessing Officer or by the first appellate authority. Thus, learned authorized representative submitted that issues may be restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Learned Departmental Representative did not express any serious objection to assessee’s request.

Having considered rival submissions, I find, due to non- appearance of assessee, for whatsoever may be the reason, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act to the best of his judgment. Whereas, assessee’s appeal was decided by NFAC. It is observed, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had made the following additions:

On perusal of the respective order of the departmental authorities, it is evident, the additions were made and sustained purely due to lack of supporting evidence furnished by assessee.

Considering the fact that the additions made are of the nature, which require the assessee to explain the source, in my considered opinion, assessee deserves an opportunity to establish his case through supporting evidence. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the first appellate authority and restore the issues relating to the additions contested in the present appeal back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, assessee is directed to comply with the queries to be made by the Assessing Officer and cooperate in finalize the proceedings. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.