JAYENDRA P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 28th May 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–53, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007–08.

2. The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under:–

“The learned CIT (Appeals) did not give time to submit the supporting records and passed the order.”

2 Jayendra P. Shah

4. In the course of hearing before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee made various submissions and also furnished evidences. The submissions made by the assessee and evidences furnished were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for verification and comment. After taking note of assessee’s submissions, the report of the Assessing Officer and the facts and material on record, learned Commissioner

3 Jayendra P. Shah (Appeals) finally disposed off the appeal by the impugned order deleting some additions while sustaining the others.

3. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has made various additions/disallowances as the assessee was unable to furnish the details called for. However, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee did furnish certain evidences which were forwarded to the Assessing Officer. On a careful reading of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that he has specifically observed that the Assessing Officer has neither examined the evidences available/filed nor called for any such evidences to sustain the disallowance. He has further observed that the documents submitted by the assessee post–assessment, though, were available on record, but were not examined by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings and he has simply submitted a report stating that 4 Jayendra P. Shah it may be considered on merits. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is very much clear that the evidences furnished by the assessee before the first appellate authority, though, were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for due examination, however, he has not at all examined them. On the contrary, in the absence of any co–operation from the Assessing Officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issues on the basis of evidences furnished and in the process has deleted certain additions while sustaining various other additions. Thus, on a perusal of the facts on record, prima facie, we are of the view that the evidences furnished by the assessee have not been properly examined. In fact, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had submitted that he may be allowed a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidences. Thus, it appears from the facts on record that the additions/disallowances made are without proper appreciation of various evidences brought on record. Considering the above, we are of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to explain various issues relating to the additions made by the Assessing Officer with supporting evidences. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore back the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication of all the issues relating to additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by learned Commissioner

5 Jayendra P. Shah (Appeals). The ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.