ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. H R POLYCOATS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

The Revenue has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 25.2.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidence ignoring the fact that assessee was given full opportunity during the assessment proceedings.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the estimate made by the AO rejecting books of account as the assessee was not submitting the details of stock. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the affidavits filed by the AR regarding its attendance and submissions

not recorded by the AO is correct and thereby granting relief to the assessee, in spite of the fact that none of the letters filed by the assessee has the mention of the previous hearings and the fact the AO was considerate enough to grant 4 adjournments to the assessee back to back during the course of assessment proceedings and also the fact that the assessee has filed certain information during the course of proceedings in the regular dak of the AO." 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to file a single original confirmation of the parties in question and only photocopies were filed which clearly were not bonafide evidences or compliance to the question raised during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore no relief could have been granted to the assessee and also considering the fact that even in additional evidence no proper confirmations were filed as such before the CIT(A) and also considering the strange fact that during the course of assessment proceedings certain 133(6) were issued and came back unserved but still there was compliance made by these parties before the AO." 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assessement should have been completed by the accepting the books result of the company because of past history, the assessee being a company and the VAT assessment of credit of taxes was made by completely ignoring the fact that not a single bonafide confirmation of creditors of raw materials as well as expenses (only photocopies) were submitted either before the AO or before the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings, in spite of several opportunities granted to the assessee."

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in not giving reasonable opportunity to the AO u/s. 46A for submitting remand report, on the so called additional evidences filed by the assessee, which have not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2) and also when the CIT(A) itself has not examined any of the additional evidences in a speaking manner to a conclusion to grant relief to the assessee.

raised above at the time of the hearing.

2. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity to the AO u/s. 46A for submitting remand report, on the so called additional evidences filed by the assessee, which have not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2) and also when the CIT(A) itself has not examined any of the additional evidences in a speaking manner to a conclusion to grant relief to the assessee. Hence, he requested that this matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the AO by calling the remand report.

Sales tax assessment order of the assessee for AY 2012-13; (d) job work bills, challans, fuel bills and stock register (e) order sheet of the assessment proceedings and notices issued by the AO.

After perusing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity to the AO u/R. 46A for submitting his remand report, on the additional evidences filed by the assessee, which have also not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2), which is not tenable. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after calling AO’s Remand Report on the additional evidences filed before him u/R 46A and after hearing the assessee, pass a well reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.