ITO, WARD-13(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S NEW KOLKATA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

The Ld. DR submits that only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in deleting the impugned addition made by the AO without affording sufficient opportunity to AO for verification of the details available before the AO/CIT-A. He further submits that the CIT-A passed ex parte order without any reasons. He also submits that the assessee filed all the details in respect of expenses incurred on account of salaries, wages, bonus and contribution to PF and administrative expenses before the AO on 26- 03-2013 and the AO has no scope to verify the same as the assessment would become time barred on 31-3-2013 and, therefore, he passed his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31-03-2013 and made disallowance on estimate basis.

The CIT-A considered the submissions together with the details, which were available before the AO by the assessee and deleted the addition without seeking any comments and remand report from the AO, which is violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The ld. DR, further, the matter has to be remanded to the AO for verification of the same and to pass a fresh order as per law.

On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that all the details in support of the claim were filed before the AO. AO he did not find any discrepancy in the accounts of the assessee. The assessee filed break up and ledger accounts in respect of expenses as claimed. In support of the contention, he referred to P & L account, which is at page 19 of the paper book. He relied on the order of the CIT-A in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Heard rival submissions and perused the record. We find that in response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed details of expenditure on 26-03-2013 in respect of the claim of expenditure. It is noticed that inspite of having said details before the AO, due to the fact that the assessment requires to be completed by 31-03-2013, passed his order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on estimatewithout verifying the same. The CIT-A considering the details of assessee, which were filed before the AO, deleted the addition made by the AO without seeking any comments and report from the AO. The ld.DR has rightly pointed out that there was violation of Rule 46A by the CIT-A considering the submissions of assessee and examining the details without seeking remand report from the AO deleted the addition. We further find that all the details were before the AO. But there was no scope to him to verify the same due to insufficient time as the assessment should be completed and passed within 31-03-2013. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the ld.DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO to verify the said details. The assessee is at liberty 2 to file necessary details, if any, in respect of the contentions and claims of assessee before the AO. Ground raised by the revenue in the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 -04-2018