BABURAO SHIVRAM JAGDANKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1) (2), MUMBAI

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal on the basis that no submission has been filed by the appellant without appreciating the fact that not only the appellant had filed the submission along with the additional evidences but also the additional evidences were sent to the Assessing Officer requiring him to submit the remand report.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the written submission filed by the appellant, the additional evidences submitted and the remand report of the Assessing Officer while deciding the appeal. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of 51,00,000 towards sale of immovable property. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, in this case already physical hearing was going on and assessee had filed various additional evidences for which remand report was called for from the AO. However, in the mean time, the case was Baburao Shivram Jagdankar transferred to NFAC who has passed ex-parte order holding that assessee has failed for offer any explanation despite several opportunities. He further submitted that the matter should be remanded back to the First Appellate Authority to decide afresh after considering the additional evidences and the remand report of the AO and the copy of which should be provided to the assessee.