RAJIV KUMAR BHUTRA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that Ground No. 1 & 2 are general and Ground No. 4 & 5 in respect of validity of reopening are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected as not pressed.

He submitted that in Ground No. 3 & 9, the grievance of the assessee is regarding violation of the principal of natural justice and on this issue, there are several judicial pronouncements as per which, the entire matter should be restored back to the AO for fresh decision and as a consequence, no decision on merit raised as per remaining grounds is called for at the present stage.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that similar issue was decided by the tribunal in the case of Shri Arvind Kumar Moolchand vs. ITO in dated 19.05.2017. A copy of this tribunal order was submitted and it was pointed out that as per Para 6 of that tribunal order, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the direction that the AO should first confront the statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi to the assessee and allow him to cross examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi to dig out the truth in this regard. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Chanda Devi Kothari vs. ITO in W. P. No. 39370/2014 dated 02.02.2015. He filed a copy of this judgment and pointed out that in that case, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court under similar facts restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the direction in Para 8 of this judgment that the AO should first provide the detail/copy of statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed and thereafter provide fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that there is no difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Shri Arvind Kumar Moolchand vs. ITO (Supra). In that case, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the direction that the AO should first confront the statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi to the assessee and allow him to cross examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi to dig out the truth.

Respectfully following this tribunal order and in turn following the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra), I set aside the orders of CIT (A) in the present case and restore the matter back to AO for a fresh decision with same directions as were given by the tribunal in the case of Shri Arvind Kumar Moolchand vs. ITO (Supra) to the effect that the AO should first confront the statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi to the assessee and allow him to cross examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi to dig out the truth. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for at this stage regarding the merit of the addition raised before me as per remaining grounds.

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