Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed
आदेश /O R D E R
PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata in appeal No.446/CIT(A)-I/C-1/09-10 dated 20.09.2010. Assessment was framed by DCIT Circle-1, Kolkata u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 21.12.2009 for assessment year 2007-08.
DCIT Cir-1, Kol. v. M/s Bee Dee Dealers Pvt. Page 2 2. At the outset it was observed that the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by making the addition / disallowance detailed as under:- (a) During the year the sales were made for an amount of Rs.12.35 lakh which was realized in totality during the year under consideration. Against the above sale a purchase of Rs.9.75 lakh was also made on credit and same was outstanding at the end of year. It was also observed that no business was carried out by the assessee company in the earlier years. On question by the AO about the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee failed to explain. Therefore AO treated the entire sales as unexplained cash credit in the books of assessee and added it to the income of assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. (b) During the year assessee has made an investment of Rs.2,25,23,000/- in shares and properties, on being question by AO to assessee about the source of such investment, assessee could not give any satisfactory reply therefore AO treated it as undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Act and added it to the income of assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by AO on the basis of submission made and documents produced before him for verification.
Shri Subhash Agarwal, Ld. Authorized Representative is appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, Ld. Departmental Representative is appearing on behalf of Revenue.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that documents which were submitted before appellate stage to CIT(A) were never confronted for verification by the AO. Therefore, we opined that the matter has not been adjudicated on the principle of natural justice and on merits. It was the duty of Ld. CIT(A) to call for a remand report from the AO regarding the explanation and documents submitted by assessee before CIT(A) at the appellate stage. We also observe that assessment has DCIT Cir-1, Kol. v. M/s Bee Dee Dealers Pvt. Page 3 been framed by AO u/s 144 of the Act. From the aforesaid discussion, we infer that assessment has not been done on the basis of merit either at appellate stage or assessment stage. So in view of above and in the interest of justice and fair play we deem it fit to restore the matter before AO for fresh adjudication as per law. Needless to say that assessee should cooperate before authorities below as and when required. In terms of the above, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.