MILLAN KUMAR RAY,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(1),, BHUBANESWAR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated

30.11.2018 for the assessment year 2010-2011.

“1. For that the order is illegal arbitrary erroneous and is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case as such the same deserves to be quashed in limine.

P a g e 1 | 5

ITA No. 30/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

ground that the learned CIT (Appeal) without giving reasonable opportunity and without considering the compliances given by the appellant, passed the impugned order as such the said order is in violation of the principle of natural justice.

that the Assessing Officer passed assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of

the Act without giving opportunity to the assessee to produce the

relevant documents in support of the addition of Rs.23,87,513/-

before the Assessing Officer. However, during the first appellate

proceedings, the assessee produced the relevant documents i.e.

the contract receipt of Rs.23,87,513/- from USHA INDIA Projects

(p) Ltd. and offered income of Rs.1,91,318/- under the head of

P a g e 2 | 5

ITA No. 30/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

profit and gains from the business in his return of income. Ld AR

submitted that the CIT(A) refused to accept the receipts on the

ground that no such submission/evidence was filed before the

Assessing Officer. It was the prayer of ld A.R. of the assessee

that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with

a direction to accept the documentary evidence in support of the

claim of the assessee.

assessee.

materials available on record of the Tribunal. In this case, the

assessment was made u/s.144/147 of the Act and the assessee

was prevent to furnish the required documents in support of its

claim. However, at the time of first appellate proceedings, when

the relevant documents were filed, the CIT(A) did not accept the

same on the ground that no fresh submission will be filed by the

assessee unless the assessee is covered by the exceptions

provided in Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962 and confirmed the

addition made by the Assessing Officer.

admission of crucial evidence by simply stating that it was not

P a g e 3 | 5

ITA No. 30/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

produced before the Assessing Officer. For this, reliance is placed

on the decision of Patna Bench of the Tribunal in the case of

Dwarka Prasad Vs. ITO, 63 ITD 1 (TM-Pat). Since the

assessment was passed u/s.144/147 of the Act exparte, qua-

assessee, therefore, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

should have admitted the additional evidence filed before him. In

view of this discussion and bearing in mind the entirety of the

case, I deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file

of the Assessing Officer with a direction to accept the required

details/documents in support of the claim of the assessee and

adjudicate this issue after giving proper opportunity of hearing to

the assessee on the explanations and materials produced by the

assessee before the CIT (A). The assessee is also directed to

produce the materials and explanations before the Assessing

Officer and co-operate to the Assessing Officer for fresh

adjudication on this issue only.

purposes.

Order pronounced on 14/05/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14 /05/209

P a g e 4 | 5

ITA No. 30/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year: 20 10- 201 1

B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Millan Kumar Roy, Flat No.VIM-255, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar

By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 5 | 5