SH. GOPAL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, no need to repeat here for the sake of convenience.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee draw my attention towards the order passed by the AO as well as ld. CIT(A) and stated that both the authorities have not given sufficient opportunity for substantiating its claim before them, inspite of the fact that the Assessee is having all the documentary evidences in his possession. He further stated that assessee has filed an Application under Rule 46 alongiwth the necessary evidence for substantiating the claim of the assessee which has wrongly been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) without any basis which is contrary to law and facts. Therefore, he requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee for producing the necessary evidence for substantiating his claim before the AO.

On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee and relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with. I find considerable cogency in the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee that AO as well as ld. CIT(A) both have not given sufficient opportunity for substantiating its claim before them, inspite of the fact that the Assessee is having all the documentary evidences in his possession. I further note that assessee has filed an Application under Rule 46 alongwith the necessary evidence for substantiating the claim of the assessee which has wrongly been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) without any basis which is contrary to law and facts. In the interest of justice, I am of the considered view that all the documentary evidences in his possession and also the Application under Rule 46 alongwith necessary evidences goes to the root of the matter and would be very much relevant to decide the issue involved in the instant appeal, hence, in the interest of justice, I admit the same, in view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court Decisions in the case of CIT vs. Manish Buildwell 245 CTR 397 and the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh under law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.