What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's application for additional evidence was not admitted by the CIT(A). The assessment order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and whether the assessment order was passed without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Himanshu Kumar, Meerut vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.10.2017Pronounced: 18.10.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against order passed by the CIT(A) on 11.01.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2012-13.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee moved an application before the ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence which was not admitted. It is further evident that the assessment order was passed without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the given circumstances and without going into the merits of the additions, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer for deciding it afresh as per law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

The order pronounced in the open court on 18.10.2017.

HIMANSHU KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments