VIPUL GADA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

Thereafter assessing officer referred that to verify the genuineness and creditworthiness of Labour charges & wages issued the notice under section 133(6) of the Act to be complied with in 6 days. Pursuant to non-receipt of reply, he proceeded to make ad-hoc disallowance of 30% of these expenditure.

Against above order assessee appealed before the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) reproduced the order of Assessing Officer. Thereafter he observed that case was fixed and there was no compliance by the assessee. Thereafter, he observed that issue is decided on merit. He referred to several case laws and upheld the order of Assessing Officer.

Against above order assessee is in appeal before us.

Learned counsel of the assessee pleaded that all the necessary details, confirmations and submissions were made before the learned CIT(A). He submitted that learned CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal without considering the submissions of the assessee.

Up on careful consideration we find that Assessing Officer in this case has himself observed that assessee's gross profit was comparable with earlier year. Thereafter Assessing Officer proceeded to verify the expenses by issuing a notice under section 133(6) of the Act and gave 6 days for compliance. Thereafter Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowance of 30%.

Up on assessee's appeal, learned CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made before him and has summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal.

Up on careful consideration, in our considered opinion the interest of justice demands that this matter be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we remit the issue the file of learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the submissions of the assessee and pass a speaking order.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.