M/S. URBAN INFRA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 11.06.2018 passed in case No.164061021270416/CIT(A)-1/Circle-2(2)/2015-16, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice none appears at the assessee’s behest. The registry has already sent the assessee an RPAD notice dated 07.01.2019 for today’s hearing. I therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is now taken up adjudication on merits.

ITA No.1519/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s Urban Infra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2), Kol. Page 2 in lower appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) sought a remand report. He then declined to admit assessee’s relevant additional evidence and affirmed the impugned addition. I see no reason to express my agreement with such a course of action. This tribunal’s decision in Shahrukh Khan’s case (2006) 7 TMI 532 holds that in case. The CIT(A) cannot refuse admission additional evidence after calling for Assessing Officer’s remand report, I therefore restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits as per law after admitting assessee’s additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It is made clear that assessee shall be afforded three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings.