SANTOSH MUDDU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(2)(3, MUMBAI

During hearing of this appeal, Shri Paresh Gohil, ld. counsel for the assessee, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the principle of natural justice was violated by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Plea was also raised that the assessee is prima-facie having good case in his favour and the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter. On the other hand, Shri Vishwas Mundhe, ld. DR, defended the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the activity of choreography, declared income of Rs.16,18,774/- in his return filed on 08/03/2010. At the time of filing of return, the assessee showed professional income. The Ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file the revised statement of income/expenditure. The assessee filed the details. The ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.67,32,325/-. The stand of the assessee is that the expenses were not inflated by the assessee and the factual matrix was not considered by the Assessing Officer. It is noted that on appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee raised various grounds and claimed that the assessment was framed in hurried manner that too without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee asked the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for reconsideration. However, the additional evidence, as claimed by the assessee, filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) under Rule-46A of the rules was not admitted causing undue loss to the assessee. The assessee has filed a paper book before us running into 1 to 144 pages out of which pages 44 to 144 were claimed to be additional evidence. Considering the totality of facts, we are of the view that the additional evidence filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should have been considered as no person should be condemned unheard. Thus, keeping in view, the principle of natural justice, we admit the additional evidence and so that no prejudice is caused to either side, remand the appeal to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish the additional evidence or any other evidence, if any, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to consider the evidence and decide in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.