RAJESH AND DSOUZA ASSOCIATES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the written submissions and the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) were not considered. Learned counsel submitted that though the assessee made detailed written submissions, which are placed at pages 51 to 70 of the paper book and particularly requested to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A(1)(d) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) failed to consider any of the submissions.

Learned counsel further submitted that the assessment was made under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, and therefore, the additional evidence may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for completion of fresh assessment.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of the authorities below, we find that the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, merely based on the statements and some materials seized in the search action conducted in the case of Lokesh Kumar Khabya. The assessee furnished additional evidence before the learned CIT(A) and also made detailed written submissions; however, the learned CIT(A) appears to have neither admitted the additional evidence nor made any discussion on the submissions made by the assessee.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Accordingly, we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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