MR. VISHAL SINGH YADAV,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the impugned Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)_, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-

1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law by confirming the order of Ld. Assessing officer

by not allowing the deduction of commission given by appellant to local shop keepers or to direct customers ranging from 2.21 % to 2.25% of MRP (maximum retail price) out of received commission of 3.2.1 % of MRP from Mobile Company (Vodaphone) which infect passon by the appellant per the market policy of the business.

2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law by confirming the order of Ld. Assessing officer

by disallowing the deduction U/s 80C of Rs.

50,000/- claimed towards LIC premium inspite of the fact that copy of the same was given to Ld. CIT(A) during appeal proceeding but he has not taken on the record only due to non submission of request for additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A).

of concerned persons were given to Ld. CIT(A) during appeal proceeding but he has not taken on the record only due to non submission of request for additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A).

3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has reiterated the contention raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law by confirming the order of Assessing officer by disallowing the deduction U/s. 80C of Rs. 50,000/- claimed towards LIC premium inspite of the fact that copy of the same was given to Ld. CIT(A) during appeal proceeding but he has not taken on the record only due to non submission of request for additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A). It was further stated that Ld. CIT(A) also wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 8,80,000/- on account of unexplained loans despite the fact that confirmations of concerned persons were given to Ld. CIT(A) during appeal proceeding but he has not taken on the record only due to non submission of request for additional evidence before him. In view of above, he requested to send back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to consider the evidences/additional evidences submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the issues in dispute in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee was given sufficient opportunity for substantiating his claim, but he could not avail the same. Therefore, the order of the authorities below especially the impugned order may be upheld and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, I am of the considered view that the evidences submitted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not taken on record by him are very much essential to render the justice to the parties and needs to be thoroughly examined at the level of the AO.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, the evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) are admitted and all the issues in dispute stand remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after examining the evidences filed by the assessee and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assesee through his counsel is also directed to file all the evidences before the AO to substantiate its case and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.