RANJIT RAMCHANDRA JAGTAP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

We find this appeal was filed with a delay of 07 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 04-12-2023 stating that he was in the bonafide impression that the dispute in this appeal was settled out of

Having heard both the parties, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide supporting which, we find notarized affidavit filed by the legal consultant, therefore, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and the delay caused is neither intentional nor wanton. Therefore, the delay of 07 days, is condoned.

On merits the ld. AR, Shri Suhas P. Bora by referring to ground No. 2, submits that the assessee was in confusion that no appeal required to be filed against the present impugned order in view of settlement of dispute out of DTVSV Scheme relating to reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The ld. AR prayed to afford an opportunity for the assessee, as the assessee realized the additions made in the original assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act requires adjudication by filing relevant evidences in supporting the assessee’s contention. The ld. DR reported no objection in remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A).

We note, that the AO made additions on account of foreign travel, travelling and conveyance, staff costs and proportionate interest on interest free advances. On perusal of the assessment order which clearly demonstrates that there was no evidence furnished in the assessment proceedings which is evident from para 5 of the assessment order, further, the assessee even did not submit the strength of employees supporting the staff costs in the assessment order which is evident from para 6 of the assessment order. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, the fact remains admitted that there was no response from the assessee in view of confusion arising due to settlement of dispute arising from reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which clearly establishes that there was no compliance by the assessee in the First Appellate proceedings. Further, the CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of AO taking into consideration the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee in the assessment proceedings which is evident from para 9 of the impugned order. Admittedly, there was no discussion whatsoever by the CIT(A) on merits as required under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, wherein, a duty cast upon the CIT(A) to dispose off the appeal in writing by stating point for determination and the decision with reasons. We find no adjudication on merits by the CIT(A) which requires, in our opinion, remand of appeal to the file of CIT(A) for his consideration afresh. We note that the ld. AR has undertaken that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case by filing relevant evidences in support of grounds raised in Form No. 35 before the CIT(A) and taking into the said undertaking and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. We also make it clear that the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) without fail, failing which the CIT(A) is directed to dispose off the appeal, in

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