HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

It was submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee that this appeal of assessee was filed with the delay of 126 days and assessee filed the condonation for such delay of 126 days explaining the reasons therein that the concerned person i.e. Accountant by name Mr. Azaruddin Ahmed, who supposed to pursue this appeal was unwell due to chronic relapsing hepatitis and was under treatment and advised to take bed rest from 15-04-2016 to 20- 08-2016 by the doctor. A medical certificate to this effect is also enclosed. Therefore, examining the same, we deem it proper to condone such delay in filing the said appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

The ld.AR submits that the AO determined the income of assessee at Rs.12,76,283/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,88,170/-. According to the ld.AR that in response to notices issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee could not produce anything in support of its claim before the AO. Accordingly, the AO passed assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act. In challenge before the CIT-A the assessee filed the documents in support of its claim. But, however, the CIT-A confirmed the additions made by the AO only on the ground that assessee could not justify the reasons regarding the admission of fresh evidence in terms of Rule 46A of IT Rules. Thus, he submits that in view of the non submission of the relevant documents before the AO urged to remand the issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration of the same.

The ld.DR submits that the assessee filed the documents before the CIT- A. On examination of the same, the CIT-A found that this is not acceptable and confirmed the additions made by the AO and referred to paras 4 and 5 of order of CIT-A.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the AO determined the income of assessee by best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act. It clearly shows that there was no representative of assessee before the AO to explain its return of income. The CIT-A having examined the documents as filed before him found that not acceptable in terms of Rule 46A of IT Rules. In our opinion that the CIT-A could have called for remand report from the AO as said documents were not available before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that ground nos. 2 & 3 as raised by the assessee before us require fresh adjudication in view of the documents as filed before the CIT-A by the assessee. Thus, we remand the issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.