PRIME QUALITY CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified by upholding the Ld. AO's order dt. 22.12.08, served on 31.12.08 , as valid u/s 143(3) instead of section 144 cause there was no appearance on the last date i.e on 19.12.08 and moreover while passing the order the submission dated 23.12.08 of the assessee was not considered. .

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by the Ld. AR of the assessee, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

At the time of hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee has filed an Application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 seeking permission for admission of already filed additional evidence before the lower authorities. He requested that the additional evidence by way of Paper Book No. 2 from page no. 80 to 158 are of legal in nature documents in additions of the already filed evidences before the authorities below and the sole purpose of these evidence w.r.t. Details of invested / investing companies just to further discharge the onus upon the assessee. He also stated that Paper Book No. 2 containing pages 80 to 158 may be admitted because it goes very root of the mater as well as in support of evidences filed through Paper Book No. 1 in the interest of justice and issue in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the parties was sent, in spite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the Department to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment by the Department. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Department, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing the Ld. A.R. of the assessee and perusing the records.

We have heard the Ld. A.R. of the assessee and perused the records. In the interest of justice and the contention raised by the Assessee’s counsel that additional evidence filed by the Assessee by way of Paper Book No. 2 from pages no. 80 to 158 i.e. Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. Provided by it of Suren Electronic & Electrical (P) Ltd. Etc....; Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Suren Electronic & Electrical (P) Ltd. Etc.... Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. Provided by it of Amardeep Const. (P) Ltd. Etc..... Balance sheet from seller of shares provided by Yansan Plastic (P) Ltd. Etc.; Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Sunstar Securities (P) Ltd. Etc. and Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Metro Fincap (P) Ltd., Kaziranga Garments, Ardent Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd........ are very essential and goes to the root of the matter, hence, the same are admitted. We are also of the view that the additional evidences filed by the assessee requires thorough examination at the level of the AO, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2016.