Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIAAND SHRI LALIET KUMAR
O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member These three appeals are filed by the assessee and these are directed against a common order of ld. CIT (A)-2, Bangalore dated 18.12.2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in all the three years, the assessment order is passed by the AO u/s. 144 because the assessee was not in a position to submit various details asked by the AO in respect of transactions of the assessee for various credit cards with various banks. He submitted that the assessee has requested for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal because now those details are received by the assessee from Standard Chartered Bank and American
Express bank and therefore, these additional evidences should be admitted and the matter should be restored back to the file of AO/CIT (A) for fresh decision in the light of these additional evidences. The ld. DR of revenue submitted that the assessee does not deserve any restoration back to the AO or CIT (A) because the AO as well as CIT (A) has given various opportunities to the assessee for compliance but the assessee has not availed the same.
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per the order of CIT (A), the first letter of hearing was issue by CIT (A) on 07.07.2015 for each of these three assessment years and in reply, the assessee has submitted a letter dated 23.07.2015 and it was submitted in this letter that the AR of the assessee requires some time to file written submissions. Thereafter on 27.08.2015, one more letter was filed by the assessee before the CIT (A) stating that ld. AR of assessee is still in the process of collecting the information required for representing the assessee and the assessee requested for adjournment. Thereafter the assessee has also written letter dated 23.09.2015 and 28.10.2015 to CIT (A) asking for more time. Thereafter as per Para no. 2.2 of order of CIT (A), the case was fixed for hearing on 30.11.2015 but it is stated by CIT (A) that even on this date, no one appeared and thereafter, the CIT (A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee by passing a combined order on 18.12.2015. Hence it is seen that although the assessee did not appear and file required details before the ld. CIT(A) but ld. AR of assessee was writing regular letters to CIT(A) seeking time to make compliance. Now the assessee says that he has obtained the required details in respect of various credit cards of Standard Chartered Bank and American Express Bank. Considering these facts and in the interest of justice, we feel it proper that the additional evidences filed by the assessee before us should be admitted and the matter be restored back to the file of ld. CIT (A) for fresh decision after considering the additional evidences. Hence we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to its file for fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. We want to make it clear that the assessee should appear before the ld. CIT (A) and should submit all the evidences on which the assessee to 396/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 3 wants to rely and thereafter, the CIT (A) should pass necessary order as per law. We do not make any comment regarding the merit of any issue in any of the years.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.