DAYANIDHI PRUSTY,JUNAGARH, ODISHA vs. ITO, BHAWANI PATNA WARD, BHAWANIPATNA

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.