ACIT,CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR CHIRAG API CONSORTIUM, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee on several occasions, even though notices were sent by registered post several times. We also notice that the notice was served through the Assessing Officer also on one occasion. Since there is no response from the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

The assessee is belonging to M/s. J. Kumar Infra Project Group. The Assessing Officer the completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,04,38,877/- after making various types of additions. The Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal in part.

Aggrieved by the relief granted b learned CIT(A) the Revenue has filed this appeal before us.

The Revenue, inter alia, has raised a ground contending that learned CIT(A) has accepted additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, i.e., it is the contention of the revenue that the additional evidences have not been confronted with the Assessing Officer. Since the Ld CIT(A) has violated Rule 46A, we deem it proper to restore all the issues to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after confronting additional evidences with the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file. After confronting the additional evidences with the AO and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.