MR. BRIJ KISHORE KOCHAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had, inter alia, taken a ground that AO erred in passing the ex parte order without giving any sufficient opportunity to the assessee and wherein no notice u/s 144 of the Act or any show cause notice was served to the assessee before making such a huge addition. Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report, which has been reproduced at page 3 of his order in which primarily the AO justified his action u/s 144 and, therefore, relying on the same, ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim.

Ld. counsel referred to page 15 of the PB and pointed out that in the written submissions it was, inter alia, pointed out that additions had been made in wrong year. He further pointed out that the details of payments made to Indirapuram Habitat Centre were given but all these details have not at all been considered by lower revenue authorities. He submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of AO so that correct factual position may be brought on record, as the assessment had been made u/s 144.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We find that ld. CIT(A) has confirmed all the additions except allowing deduction u/s 80C, relying on the remand report of AO. However, ld. counsel submits that facts needs to be remarshalled as assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to plead his case. Considering the entirety of facts, after going through the order of ld. CIT(A), in order to impart substantial justice to assessee, we restore the matter to the file of AO to pass the assessment order de novo, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. We order accordingly.

Facts of the case being identical, for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 also we restore the matter to the file of AO for de novo assessment as in AY 2006-07.

In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronouncement in open court on 12/05/2016.