ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 , COIMBATORE vs. K.M.MUSTHAFA , ERODE

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 31.05.2017 in 375 to 378/16-17 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2015-16 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) & 153A of the Act. The assessee for the assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2015-16.

There is a delay of 9 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue. The Ld.ACIT has furnished an affidavit before us stating that the delay had occurred due to the time lag during the transit of files from higher authorities. It was therefore pleaded that the short delay in filing the appeals by 9 days may be condoned. The Ld.AR objected to the submission of the Ld.DR. However, after hearing both sides, though we do not appreciate the lethargic attitude of the Revenue, in the interest of justice we are of the considered view that the short delay in filing the appeals requires to be condoned.

Both the Revenue and the assessee have raised various grounds in their appeals. However the main prayer of the Revenue was that the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed certain grounds raised by the assessee based on the fresh evidence produced before him, thereby not providing the Ld.AO an opportunity to examine the evidences produced before the Ld.CIT(A) for the first time. The Ld.DR vehemently argued stating that the Ld.CIT(A) has violated Ld.AO before deciding the issues. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh examining of the evidences and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law. The Ld.AR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.DR.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. We find merit in the arguments of the Ld.DR. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have obtained a Remand Report from the Ld.AO with respect to the fresh evidence produced before him for the first time and thereafter decided the matter, which he has grossly failed. Therefore as argued by the Ld.DR, the Ld.CIT(A) has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore we do not have any other option but to remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Since we are remitting the matter back to the file of Ld.AO, we find it appropriate to remit the grounds raised by the assessee also back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Both the parties also agreed for the matter to be heard once again by the Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Accordingly all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.