INDRANIDEVI INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not furnish before the ld. AO the necessary evidences as required by the ld. AO by issuing various notices. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) also that the assessee has filed some additional evidences, which were not admitted on the ground that no petition was filed under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the issue may be kindly be restored to the

The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the prayers of the counsel of the assessee.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that before the ld. AO the assessee has failed to comply to various notices issued and thus, the ld. AO could not decide the issue based upon the evidences/merit. Before the ld. CIT (A) also the ld. CIT (A) rejected the application of the assessee in respect of additional evidences and thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. JAO with a direction to decide the same denovo, after taking into account all the evidences, which the assessee may file before the ld. JAO. Needless to say, that the assessee would be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the same.