NIRMALA DEVI MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR MADHAVIKUTTY,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD 1(3), TRIVANDRUM

At the outset we note that the learned CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee to re-present her case on various dates, but the assessee could not avail the same. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (AO).

At the time of hearing the learned A.R. before us submitted that the assessee has incurred cost on improvement of the impugned property which has not been Nirmala Devi Madhusoodhanan Nair allowed by the Revenue authorities. The learned A.R. further fairly admitted that necessary details were also not furnished in support of the cost incurred towards improvement of the land. However, the learned A.R. assured to furnish the necessary details if one more opportunity is given to the assessee. The learned A.R. further prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the claim for the cost of improvement during the appellate proceedings and further the assurance made by the learned A.R. of the assessee to make necessary compliance, we, in the interest of justice and fair play, inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for representing her case before the AO. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have remanded the matter back to the AO, the stay application becomes infructuous.