M/S MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM

1. “The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by confirming order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer which was bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case;

2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 93,45,714/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer by erroneously invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; I.T.A. No. 5060/D/2012

3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend/forego any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. It is observed from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) that there has been no representation made by the assessee before the first appellate authority. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated before us that the assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ld. CIT(A). 2.1. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR also made a request of the matter be disposed off by the ld. CIT(A) before the end of this financial year. The ld. AR is hereby directed to attend the office of the ld. CIT(A) and to receive the notice of hearing on or before him by 15/03/2016. The ld. CIT(A) may positively consider the request of the assessee for early disposal of his case. The assessee shall cooperate in the disposal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly, set aside the appeal to the ld. CIT(A).