SOUMIL PRAVIN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (1)(2), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-37, Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 12/09/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Shri Madhur Agrawal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( in short 'the Act'). A perusal of the assessment order would show that the Assessing Officer in a summary manner has rejected the books of account and has made addition of Rs.50,25,000/-. The CIT(A) has merely relied on the remand report without appreciating the facts and documents on record. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present the case before Assessing Officer.

Per contra, Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order shows that several notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer . The Assessing Officer thereafter rejected the books of account and made estimated addition of Rs.50,25,400/- @ 1% of the total turnover i.e. Rs.50.40 crores. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee upholding the assessment order, though before dismissing the appeal, the CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on service of notice and shall co-operate in the assessment proceedings.

In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.