Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The Present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 32,Mumbaidated 20.04.16 for AY 2011-12.
At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
As per the facts of the present case, the assessee is a firm and engaged in the business of construction. The return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was filed on 25.04.16declaring total income of Rs. 1,22,30,590/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny, and after serving statutory notices and seeking reply of the assessee, order of assessment u/s 143(3) was passed by AO, thereby additions.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Arihant Builders Now before us, the revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds.
The solitary ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A notwithstanding the fact that the assessee had failed to submit the relevant details at the time of assessment proceedings and not giving specific opportunity to the assessing officer as required under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Our attention was drawn by Ld. DR towards the order of assessment dated 21.03.14 passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, wherein in para no. 4(i), it has been specifically mentioned that “the assessee vide letter dated 24th Feb 2014 submitted that he is unable to furnish the account and vouchers of the expenses.”
Arihant Builders Apart from above, Ld. DR had also drawn our attention towards order of Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the assessee conveyed the portion of land to M. S. Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd. and in this respect, agreement was registered on 12.07.10. Ld. DR also drawn our attention to the facts that Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance made by the AO only by relying upon agreement for conveyance of land transferred, was in possession of the assessee from 1992. Lastly, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had relied upon the agreement without seeking remand report from the assessee, which is in clear violation and contravention of Rule 46A of I.T. Act, 1962, therefore the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. There is no rebuttal to the facts pointed out by Ld. DR. After considering the facts of the present case as well as submissions made before us, we find force in the arguments of Ld. DR. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts in the order of revenue authorities, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to verify the documents i.e. agreement of conveyance in favour of M. S. Shah Developers Pvt. Ltd registered on 12.07.10 or any other
Arihant Builders document not verified earlier and thereafter decide this ground afresh. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. Resultantly this ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.