ITO 6 (1) (4), MUMBAI vs. BLOSSOM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

During hearing, the ld. DR Shri T.A. Khan advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no power to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and was expected to adjudicate the issue on merits.

On the other hand, Shri Santosh Zende, ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developer, declared NIL income in its return filed on (M/s. Blossom Developers Pvt. Ltd.) 31/03/2011. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 1,02,27,060/- on 28/03/2013. The assessee is the owner an old building known as ‘Bawla House”. The assessee entered into a development agreement with M/s.Universal Estate Developers for the development of the aforesaid property, vide agreement dated 24/02/2003. As per the development agreement, the developer was to bear the cost of construction and to provide free of cost a suitable accommodation to rehabilitate the tenants/occupants of the old building in the proposed new building. The ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,02,27,060/- on the basis of transactions reported in AIR regarding the sale of property. The stand of the assessee was that necessary details were furnished vide letter dated 16/11/2012 and the total sale consideration, as per agreement, has been accounted by M/s. Universal Estate Developers. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) none was present for the Department and finally, on consideration of remand reply and reply of (M/s. Blossom Developers Pvt. Ltd.) the assessee to the remand report, the ld. Assessing Officer was directed to verify the record of M/s. Universal Estate Developers. Since the remand report was sought from the ld. Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) instead of remanding back to the Assessing Officer was expected to adjudicate the issue on merits. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to adjudicate the issue on merits afresh in accordance with law. The assessee as well as the Revenue be given opportunity of being heard. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.