DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. WINE SOCIETY OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

order of the AO. The Authorised Representative(AR) contended that the assessee -Wine Soc.of india had filed necessary details before the FAA, that this was the first year of the business of the assessee, that FAA had verified the details filed by the assessee.

5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had filed additional evidences during the appellate proceedings, that the FAA had forwarded the same to the AO for comments, that he did not furnished the remand report even after two years and even after getting the last opportunity to comment on the additional evidences, that the FAA made the necessary enquiries and restricted the disallowance made by the AO. The FAA has got co-terminous power with the AO. We are unable to understand as to what prevented the AO to file remand report. On the one hand,in spite of getting a period of more than two years,the AO did not comment upon the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the FAA that were remanded to his office and on the other hand now he is challenging the appellate order arguing that her order was not justifiable. It appears that the Commissioner of income tax, who has authorised the AO to file the appeal has conveniently ignored the fact that the AO had not submitted the remand report in spite of getting sufficient time to do so.We find that the FAA had made certain enquiries and after that took an informed decision. In our opinion, her decision does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, confirming the same, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the AO.