SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of gold and silver ornaments, filed its return declaring total income of Rs.15,06,560/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.11.2017 accepting the income declared. The ld. Pr.CIT, on a perusal of record, observed that the assessee contravened the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and also that the income declared during the course of survey on account of excess stock amounting to Rs.30,01,449/- was not declared. These issues were found not to have been considered by the Assessing Officer at the time of completing the assessment. He issued show cause notice to the assessee on 16.02.2021 requiring it to explain its position. The assessee did not submit any reply. Thereafter, a reminder was issued on 11.03.2021 requesting the assessee to submit its reply by 15.03.2021. In the absence of the assessee furnishing any reply, the ld. Pr.CIT proceeded ex parte and held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Setting aside the assessment order, he directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to revisit the issues discussed above after allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. Pr.CIT did not himself adjudicate on the two issues espoused by him for revision primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any reply by the stipulated date, namely, 15.03.2021. The ld. AR invited our attention towards pages 13 and 14 of paper book being e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement, as per which the assessee uploaded its part reply on 15.03.2021. Pages 15 and 16 are again e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement, through which the assessee furnished the remaining part of the reply to the ld. Pr.CIT on the same date. Though the assessee furnished its reply giving necessary details on 15.03.2021, being, the same date as given by the ld. Pr.CIT for making submissions, the ld. Pr.CIT passed order on 18.03.2021 without taking note of such replies. This shows that the impugned order has been passed without considering the replies of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. Pr.CIT. We order accordingly and direct him to pass the revisionary order afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and taking into consideration the replies already filed by the assessee and any further reply that the assessee may seek to lodge.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.