ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH SADASHIV BAPAT, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the hearing was adjourned on the last occasion at the request of the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the revenue is contesting the order passed by Ld CIT(A) granting relief in respect of following items:- (a) Disallowance of purchases (b) Disallowance of custom duty payment (c) Disallowance u/s 94(7) of the Act.

The Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences furnished by the assessee before him. Even though the Ld CIT(A) has called for a remand report from the AO, yet he passed the order without waiting for the remand report. Accordingly he submitted that there is violation of Rule 46A of the I T rules.

We have gone through the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and we find merit in the contentions of the Ld D.R. Accordingly we are of the view that all the issues need to be set aside to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by duly considering the evidences furnished by the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on the issues contested by the revenue and restore them to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by duly considering the evidences that were/may be filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.