M/S. WILLARD INDIA LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, BULANDSHAHR

Date of Hearing 07.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 27.10.2014 of the CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to 2010-11 AY on various grounds. However at the time of hearing, the Ld.AR addressed only Ground No.1 submitted that in the facts of the present case, the assessee who has appeared initially before the AO thereafter could not appear on account of the facts that there was a deterioration in the net worth of the assessee and the assessee was trying to revive itself by going before BIFR etc. and the assessment order was consequently passed u/s 144. It was his submission that the arbitrariness of the Assessing Officer would be evident from the fact that the entire TDS deducted was added as undisclosed income and the evidence in the Form of 26AS was also added as undisclosed receipts. The issue, it was submitted came up in appeal before the CIT(A) and the evidence which was available before the AO was relied upon by the CIT(A) and was treated as fresh evidence and taking note of the fact that since three opportunities were provided by the AO, the addition was confirmed without addressing the grievance of the assessee.

I.T.A .No.-6848/Del/2014 3. The Ld.Sr.DR on considering the order of the CIT(A) was unable to comment whether any fresh evidence was filed as evidently no discussion on what evidence was considered to be fresh evidence by the CIT(A) has been discussed in the order. Considering the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A), it was his submission that in these circumstances, the issue may be restored to the AO as admittedly fresh evidence may be required to decide the same. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and I find that the impugned order cannot be said to be an order passed in accordance with law as the grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) evidently had not been decided. It is further not clear what is the evidence considered as fresh evidence by the CIT(A).

Considering the overall factual matrix and the submissions of the parties, it is deemed appropriate to restore the issue back to the AO to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04th of November, 2016.