CHOUDHARI CONSTRUCTION CO,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 31(1), MUMBAI

The Ld.AR submitted that the major part of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was related to alleged bogus purchases disallowed by the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that the representative, who was appointed to make representation before the AO, has stopped appearing before the AO in between and hence, various details calledfor by the AO could not be furnished before him. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the necessary details before the Ld.CIT(A) also due to improper representation. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee is furnishing all the relevant materialregarding purchases in the form of additional evidences. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed that additional evidences may be admitted and the matters may be restored to the file of the AO for examining the issues afresh.

The Ld.DR also did not object to the prayed put-forth by the Ld.AR.

We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the AO has made a disallowance of Rs. 64.50 lakhs towards non-genuine purchases and Rs. 1.68 lakhs towards Transport and Octroi charges. Before us, the assessee has filed voluminous paper books, containing details of the above said expenses and also filed a petition requesting to admit the same. In the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the additionalevidences furnished by the assessee may be admitted. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since these evidences require examination, we prefer to restore all the issues to the file of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above said two additions and restore them to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by duly considering the additional evidences furnished/that may be furnished by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.