M/S. BINARY NETWORK SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The only ground raised by the assessee reads as under:-

“This is an appeal against the order passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, where by he has assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.60,96,027 against the returned income of Rs.3,50,670/- by acting arbitrarily in making the above addition. The appellant is disputing the above addition which is wrong, unjust, biased and against the provision of law and facts on records.”

At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that in the assessee company, there are two directors Shri Sunil Jain and his mother Smt. Nirmala Jain. That at the relevant time, wife of Shri Sunil Jain suffered from cancer and he was busy in her treatment. This fact is evident from the statement of Smt. Nirmala Jain which is reproduced in the assessment order itself wherein Smt. Nirmala Jain has stated that his son Shri Sunil Jain looks after the business and she only supervises the business in his absence. She also stated that Shri Sunil Jain is away to Mumbai for treatment of his wife and when he comes back, he will explain the discrepancy. She stated that in the absence of Shri Sunil Jain, Smt. Nirmala Jain could not furnish proper explanation before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, he treated the assessee as entry provider and estimated the commission income of the assessee at `60,96,027/- as against the business income of `3,50,670/-. She requested that the matter may be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer where Shri Sunil Jain would appear and would submit all the necessary details and evidences so as to satisfy the Assessing Officer that the assessee was actually carrying on the business and not an entry provider.

Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. However, he has no serious objection in setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). After considering the same, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the orders of authorities below are set aside and matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. We order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to produce necessary evidence

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 11.08.2016.