KIRTAN BIHARI BEHERA,KENDUJHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

Shri Akshaya Mohapatra, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has furnished substantial documents before the ld. CIT(A) however the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that certain other documents have not been produced. At this point, it was pointed to the ld. AR that even in the assessment order, it is mentioned that documents have not been produced before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a non-resident, the assessee was not in India during the time when the assessment was done, consequently and admittedly, it was a failure on the part of the assessee to produce all the documents before the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that even otherwise, it was incumbent to the Assessing Officer to call for valuation report of the DVO which has not done by the Assessing Officer. It was then pointed out to the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer shall refer the matter to the DVO, in such circumstances, only where the assessee requests for such valuation to be referred to the DVO.

In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. As is noticed that the assessee has not produced all the required documents to substantiate its claim in regard to long-term capital gains before the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are

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