INDIGO PRESS (INDIA) PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Commissioner of Income-tax(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. A.Y.2012-13

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Commissioner of Income-tax(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds on merits of the case.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and even in the absence of the Authorized Representative of the appellant the CIT(A) ought to have referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer to clarify the discrepancy in the 26AS as pointed out in the grounds of appeal that there was error on the part of the Tax Deductor instead of confirming the enhancement of the income in the hands of the appellant which was added by the Assessing Officer without granting the appellant any opportunity or issuing any show cause to rebut the addition.

4. The appellant craves leave to add to alter or amend the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.99,34,540/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company was engaged in the business of printing and publishing. On verification, found discrepancies were found between the 26AS statement and Profit & Loss account, therefore, notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the discrepancies in sum of Rs.4,52,686/- was not reconcile, therefore, the same was added to the income of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition, therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal before us.