ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE vs. DHARAMRAJ INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, DELHI

Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department submitted that the Revenue in appeal has assailed the relief of Rs.3,28,27,296/- granted to the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the absence of any documentary evidence. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee during the assessment proceedings never appeared before the Assessing Officer. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The same was duly served. Thereafter, several notices u/s. 142(1) were issued and served on assessee. However, the assessee neither attended the assessment proceedings nor replied to any of the notices served. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee did not bother to respond to the said notice as well. The Assessing Officer was constrained to pass assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances aggregating to Rs.3,41,21,918/-. The assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging assessment order. During First Appellate proceedings the assessee filed additional evidences. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify or examine the documents filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings allowed the appeal of assessee. The ld. AR submitted that a fair opportunity to verify and examine the documents furnished for the first time before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have been allowed to the Assessing Officer.

Per contra, Shri Kapil Goel appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. AR submitted that the documents filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were already on record. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. A perusal of assessment order shows that several notices were sent to the assessee by Assessing Officer. However, the assessee did not bother to appear before the Assessing Officer nor any written submissions were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is evident from records that the assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings. Hence, the Assessing Officer was constrained to invoke the provisions of section 144 for finalizing the assessment.

In First Appellate proceedings, purportedly, the assessee has filed certain documents in support of his contentions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without seeking any report from the Assessing Officer on documents filed by the assessee proceeded on to estimate net profit of 8% of the total turnover. Violation of Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules by the First Appellate Authority is apparent writ large. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we are of considered view that this appeal needs revisit to the Assessing Officer. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.