DREAMLAND VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA

The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that certain documents could not be furnished before the ld. AO nor before the ld. CIT(A) and the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act for personal appearance of the Directors of the assessee company as well as directors of the subscribing companies could not be complied. The ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has given a clear-cut finding on these

The ld. DR on the other hand did not oppose the arguments of the ld. AR and left the issue to the wisdom of the bench.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that there was partial compliance on the part of the assessee before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) as certain documents were not filed. Besides, we note that the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act were not complied. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal needs to be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that the necessary documents/ evidences could be examined and the directors of the assessee company as well as the directors of the subscribing companies could be examined on oath. Accordingly, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the appeal de-novo after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce evidences/ additional evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to produce the directors of the investing companies as well as its own directors before the ld. AO for examination. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.