BLUESKY DEALERS LTD.,TELANGANA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-10(4), KOLKATA

At the time of hearing, the appeal under the captioned “early hearing”, it was brought to our notice that there was no opportunity before the two lower authorities as there was no notice served on the assessee. He referred to assessment order as well as impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and sought to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration. Ld.DR reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of AO. It is noted from the record that the AO re-opened the assessment and passed an order u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) by making an addition of Rs.14,95,61,940/- u/s 68 of the Act under the head “unexplained cash credit”. It is also noted that there was no opportunity for the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. However, it is noticed that the assessee sought adjournment on one of the date of hearing before the CIT(A).

(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) 4. As discussed above, the addition made u/s 68 requires assistance of the assessee in proving the three ingredients i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Admittedly, there was no occasion for both the authorities below to verify the same. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld.AR & Ld. DR and facts & circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.