Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]
For the Appellant : Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the CIT(A)- 13, Kolkata’s order dated 18/05/2018 passed in case no. 260/CIT(A)-5/Wd- 28(4)/Kol/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s grievance pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action adding gross profit of Rs. 29,79,107/- reduced by expenses coming to Rs. 16,35,160/- resulting in net income of Rs. 13,43,947/-. The assessee’s plea is qua rejection of books and stock addition and computation of total income amounting to Rs. 12.70,405/-. Learned counsel’s argument during the course of hearing is that the CIT(A) has sought for a remand report from the Assessing Officer who in turn issued a letter dated 03.04.2014. Copy of this letter asking the assessee to file original stock register and stock statement along with closing
Calson Electricals A.Yr. 2008-09 stock valuation details is placed on record. Mr. Singh fails to dispute the clinching fact that there is no discussion in the CIT(A)’s finding about the said remand proceedings. Learned counsel’s case on the other hand before me is that the Assessing Officer’s remand report had duly agreed with the assessee’s case. I deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the CIT(A) needs to re-examine the entire issue afresh as per law after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the taxpayer. I make it clear that in case the remand report is found to have accepted the assessee’s submission on merits, the impugned addition shall stand deleted.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Court on 22.03.2019