Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed the appeal against the AO's additions. The assessee argued that the AO made additions without considering relevant documents, and these documents were also not considered by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee failed to furnish details and documentary evidence before the AO and CIT(A). However, additional evidence was produced before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the AO and CIT(A) considered the relevant documents submitted by the assessee and whether the appeal should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.11.2024, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070472086(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It was submitted by the ld AR that the AO has made additions without considering the relevant documents produced by the assessee. It was also submitted that those documents were also placed before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee is having all the documents in respect of his claim, which are filed before the Tribunal and prayed that the same may be taken on record. It was, thus, submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue afresh enabling the assessee to file the relevant documents to substantiate his claim before the ld. AO.
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the orders passed by both the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee could not furnish the details as asked for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Further on perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), clearly shows that the assessee also could not provide required documentary evidence to substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee produced additional evidence before us, which are taken on record in respect of his claim. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to produce all the documentary evidence to substantiate his case during the course of readjudication proceeding before the AO positively.