SHRI VARDARAJ PRALHAD JOSHI SHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(5), MUMBAI

The Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get enough opportunity to furnish details called for by the Assessing Officer. Inviting our attention to the assessment order learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued notices dated 25.2.2016 under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to various creditors requiring compliance by them latest by 3.3.2016, i.e., he has given just 7 days from the date of notice and it is not clear when the notices were actually posted. The AO has tabulated the details mentioning that some of the notices have been returned back and no reply was received from other parties. The assessee was asked to reply on the fact of non-compliance by the creditors on 16.3.2016, but the 2 Shri Vardaraj Pralhad Joshi assessee could not gather necessary details from creditors for want of time. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.3.2016 by adding purchases as well as sundry creditors treating them as bogus. The Learned AR further submitted that learned CIT(A) also did not provide enough opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the making addition of purchases as well as corresponding sundry creditors may result in double addition of same item. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee may be provided opportunity to present his case properly before the Assessing Officer.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. From the submissions made by Ld A.R and also on going through the assessment order, we agree with the submissions of Ld A.R that the assessee did not get enough opportunity, since assessment proceedings were taken up at the fag end of the limitation period. It is also not clear from the order passed by Ld CIT(A) as to whether the first appellate authority provided adequate opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with an opportunity to present his case properly. In fact, affording adequate opportunity of being heard would promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining them afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.06.2022.