Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, arguing that the AO and CIT(A) disregarded relevant documents leading to additions. The assessee claimed to possess the documents and sought restoration to the AO for fresh consideration.
Held
The Tribunal observed the assessee's failure to present documents to lower authorities but accepted additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication with directions for the assessee to provide all necessary documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether additions made without considering assessee's documents by the AO and CIT(A) necessitate remand to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to present evidence.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053671526(1), for the assessment year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld AR that the AO has made additions without considering the relevant documents produced by the assessee. It was also submitted that those documents were also placed before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee is having all the documents in respect of his claim, which are filed before the Tribunal and prayed that the same may be taken on record. It was, thus, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue afresh enabling the assessee to file the relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the ld. AO.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it clearly shows that the assessee also could not provide required documentary evidence to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee produced additional evidence before us, which are taken on record in respect of his claim. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, on the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the documentary evidence to substantiate his case during the course of readjudication proceeding before the AO positively.