SRI SHYAMALENDU KONAR,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

Inspite of service of notice, none appeared of behalf of revenue. Therefore, after hearing the Ld.AR of the assesse and perusing the material available on record, we dispose off the appeal on merits.

The only issue is to be decided in this appeal as to whether the CIT-A is justified without affording an opportunity to the assessee in the enquiry as conducted by the AO concerning the additional grounds as raised by the assessee before the CIT-A.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and conducting his business in the name of style of “Konar Mill Stores “ as supplier of spare parts to various rice mills. The assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.1,56,420/- and under scrutiny, notices U/sec. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to which the assessee submitted purchase deed of a land and a bank statement belonging to United Bank of India, Burdwan Station Bazar. According to AO, the sale consideration of said land as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority was at Rs.59,76,250/- and calculated the value of such transfer of asset at Rs.46,34,640/- for the purpose of long term capital gain, besides, also assessed the income from business & profession at Rs.1,56,420/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,91,060/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

The assessee, as aggrieved, assailed the same before the CIT-A, wherein, the assessee raised additional grounds claiming deduction on brokerage, incidental expenses, cost on improvement and exemption/deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT-A confirmed the order of AO.

The contention of the Ld.AR was that before us, that the CIT-A sought enquiry report from AO and did not provide an opportunity to assessee to participate in such enquiry and referred to para-3 of impugned order of the CIT-A and argued that it is unilateral enquiry. Likewise, Ld.AR referred to para-6 of CIT-A’s order that there was no opportunity for the assessee to produce evidence in respect of claim of brokerage and incidental expenses before the AO and basing on such enquiry report as conducted by the AO behind the back of assessee the CIT-A dismissed the claims as raised in additional grounds.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

In view of the discussion above, we find that the CIT-A instead of seeking remand report from AO allowed the AO to conduct enquiry in the absence of assessee. It is noticed from paras 6 and 18 that the CIT-A dismissed the claim on brokerage and incidental expenses and deduction U/sec. 54F of the Act for want of evidence. In such circumstances as submitted by the Ld.AR to remand the appeal to AO, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit, proper to remand the appeal to the file of AO for verification in terms of Additional grounds as raised by the assessee before the CIT-A. The assessee shall be at liberty to file/produce evidences, if any to substantiate his claim and shall co-operate with the AO in the assessment proceeding without seeking any adjournment. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.