RAJESHBHAI KARSANBHAI BALDHA,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1)(1),, RAJKOT

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on ad hoc addition of Rs.17,06,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. I note that ld. CIT(A) before passing order called for remand report from Assessing Officer but passed his order without getting remand report from Assessing Officer, which is against the principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजकोट