M/S. VERSATILE DATAMATICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

During the year, the assessee company is engaged in the business of IT Enabled Company also dealing in sale and purchase of shares. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2009 for the A.Y. 2009-10 declaring income of Rs. 11,49,191/-. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was taken up in scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 19.08.2010 and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) along with questionnaires was issued and duly served upon the assessee wherein certain specific details were called for. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee converted his investment in the balance sheet of shares Rs. 65,00,000/- into stock in trade during the year. The assessee was asked to file the shares sale/purchase documents, confirmations, stock in trade calculation, calculation of the share value. In respect of the same, the assessee filed the revised computation in which the calculation of the income was shown at Rs. 23,65,260/- as income from capital gain as on the date of conversion on 01.05.2008. However, the Assessing Officer further observed that in respect of profit, the assessee converted the same to a loss of Rs. 12,16,069 instead of the income declared of Rs. 11,49,191/-. The assessee did not give any evidence before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer made total taxable income of Rs.50,94,450/-.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it is found that the CIT(A) has not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee filed certain evidences before the CIT(A) which was not admitted by the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, and the assessee was not represented properly before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to remain present before the CIT(A) and properly plead the case before the CIT(A). If the assessee fails to appear before the CIT(A), then the CIT(A) should proceed with the documents filed by the assessee and decide the issue on merit after thoroughly verifying the documents. Thus, we are remanding back this matter before the CIT(A) to decide the issue after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee by following principles of natural justice.

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