TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence before Ld. CIT(A) but no application filed for admission of additional evidence. Assessee produced the evidence for the first time before Ld. CIT(A) in respect of both the grounds of appeal. However, no opportunity have been given to the A.O. to rebut the evidences produced by assessee at appellate stage and even no remand report have been called for in the matter. It is, therefore, a case of denial of an opportunity to the A.O. at appellate stage, particularly, when no evidence was filed before A.O. at assessment stage Nothing has been done in the matter. Even the assessee has not made any request to the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidence as per submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. We, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crutiny. Shri Tripat Pal Singh and Smt. Harjeet Kaur are the Directors of the Company which started operations/ business from February 2010 (F.Y 2009-10). The assessee is in the business of online marketing of sale of consumer goods like grocery and garments etc. through home delivery. The assessee has about 500 online customers from whom the assessee collected ₹ 1,42,93,992/- as deposit from the customer against the sale of goods which included one-time registration fee of ₹ 10,84,482 and the balance amount of ₹ 1,32,09,510 was a deposit from above 500 customers. The assessee had taken the advance from the customer against the online sale of grocery goods etc. The advance of ₹ 1,32,09,510/- has been shown as a liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tomers through mostly online or cheque and the proper identity of each of the customers like name, address, photo ID, mobile number, PAN number etc. has been collected from each of the customers and there is no scope of any manipulation about the identity of each of the customers. It is submitted that the AO has made the addition without understanding the facts and circumstances of the case and the addition of ₹ 1,32,09,510/- which has been received by the customers as advance against the supply of goods in a very ad-hoc manner. It is submitted that the AO has also disallowed the claim of the commission payment of ₹ 1,11,22,297/- in a very casual manner although the assessee has itself disallowed the claim in the computation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case vide ground No.2 to 6 and 7 and accordingly the same is deleted. 5. The Ld. D.R. contended that on both the additions A.O. given specific notice to the assessee for explanation and compliance. Further, no compliance have been made and no evidence have been produced before A.O. Since no evidence have been produced before A.O, therefore, Ld. CIT(A), before deleting the addition should have call for the remand report from the A.O. or should have given opportunity to the A.O. to rebut the explanation for evidence filed for the first time before him. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not done anything in the matter. 6. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, however, submitted that the chart containing details were filed before A.O, copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that before deleting the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) shall have to give an opportunity of being heard to the A.O. or the Ld. CIT(A) should have call for the remand report from the A.O. However, nothing has been done in the matter. Even the assessee has not made any request to the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidence as per submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee. We, therefore, do not subscribe the view of the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting both the additions in such a manner. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore these issues to his file with a direction to redecide the grounds by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as A.O. In case any need arises, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
