PRAKASH KURUVILLA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ex parte in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from house property and salary. The assessee declared income of Rs.2,17,02,408/-. Under scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee at 2,37,02,410/- vide his order dated 31.12.2008 which was challenged before the CIT(A). According to the Ld. AR, there was no opportunity before the CIT(A) in contesting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in first appellate proceedings. The ld. DR opposed the same and referred the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee did not avail the Prakash Kuruvilla Assessment Year: 2006-07 opportunity in contesting the grounds raised before the CIT(A). On perusal of the record, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not disclose the investments made in Fidelity Mutual Funds and it was submitted by the assessee that it was made out of his salary income and past savings and non-submission of any evidence to that effect the Assessing Officer added the same. In view of the same, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to file all evidences in support of his plea. Ground raised is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.