M/S GUPTA FERTILIZERS &,SANGRUR vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SANGRUR

Considering the assessment order and the impugned year, ld. Sr.DR had no objection if the issue is remanded to the CIT(A). 4. I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that in the facts of the present case, the assessee’s prayer on facts can be allowed. The record shows that as per the claim made in the assessment proceedings as set out by the AO, the assessee was only required to demonstrate its claim for which summons u/s 131 had been issued and confirmations and affidavits of the share capital subscribers were required to be filed to decide the identity, genuineness and capacity of the parties. These evidences admittedly were filed but were filed late, thus not considered by the AO. The CIT(A) in the Appellate proceedings though considered these, however came to the conclusion that it was not sufficient. In the circumstances, I am of the view that once evidence in compliance to the directions of the AO was made available and the CIT(A) on facts concluded that it was not sufficient then it was incumbent upon the said authority to communicate that conclusion to the assessee as to provide a specific opportunity to address the reasons on the basis of which the claim was being denied. No doubt, powers of the Commissioner(Appeals) are co-terminus with those of the AO, however, adherence to the rules of natural justice cannot be bypassed. Accordingly, in the light of the submissions of the parties before the Bench, the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) to make good this procedural lapse. The CIT(A) shall, thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law de-novo after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th March,2018.