TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erify them – CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee merely on the basis of the written submission which was forwarded to the AO for his comments – the AO was not furnished an opportunity to submit his comments on the basis of any additional evidence, which was sought to be produced by the assessee before the CIT(A). The Tribunal was justified in holding that the CIT(A) proceeded to allow the appeal of the assessee without the books of account or supporting vouchers being produced before him, only on the basis of the remand report which was called for - there is no reason for the Court to take a different view since it is clear that before the AO sufficient adjournments had already been allowed from time to time - the proper course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been made out. The delay is, hence, condoned. The appeal by the assessee arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27 September 2013. The assessment year to which the appeal relates is AY 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is justified in reversing the order of the CIT (A) and restoring the order of A.O. on the ground that CIT (A) has without verifying books of accounts or without admitting additional evidence has given relief on merits to the assessee ignoring that CIT (A) in exercise of power under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has called for remand report before allowing the relief to the assessee. (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer submitted his remand report on 7 May 2012 and specifically stated that two additions, which have been made by him, may be deleted respectively in the amount of ₹ 50,000/- and ₹ 2,10,920.00. The order-sheet of the Assessing Officer records that on 1 May 2012, he had issued a letter to the assessee to produce his books of account, namely, cash book and ledger and that on 9 May 2012, the assessee's representative had produced books of account, which were verified by him. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. Thus, the relief has been given without giving opportunity to assessing officer. CIT (A)'s findings are unsustainable and contrary to record. Again the Tribunal observed as follows: From the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before CIT (A) no grievance has been made about the assessment being without books or record which implies that assessee admitted the position about the assessment being without books. Similarly, neither there is any application for admission of additional evidence, nor it appears that the accounts books were produced before the CIT (A). From the record it emerges that assessee only filed written submissions before CIT (A) giving some explanation which was forwarded to assessing officer for his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable on the record. Moreover, it was urged on behalf of the Revenue that in the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), no ground was taken in relation to the assessment having been made without books or record. We have perused the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and the Revenue. Basically, the extract from the decision of the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner (Appeals) for not having either verified the books and for not having furnished an adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify them. Moreover, according to the Tribunal, the Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the appeal of the assessee merely on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. As we have already observed, there is no reason for the Court, on the basis of the material available on the record, to take a different view since it is clear that before the Assessing Officer sufficient adjournments had already been allowed from time to time. However, in our view, the proper course of action would have been for the Tribunal to have restored the proceedings back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee, once the Tribunal had found fault with the procedure which was followed by the Appellate Authority. Essentially, what the Tribunal has found fault with is the approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal of the assessee without verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
