Case Law Details
Karur Jayaprakash Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
We notice that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted the fact that the assessee’s representative for the first time produced various details on 21.06.2010 (page 4 of CIT(A)’s order). The CIT (A) has infact verified these evidences but had rejected the same merely on the ground that these details should have been available with the assessee during the assessment proceedings itself and should have been produced before the AO. In our view the decision of CIT(A) on a presumptive basis is incorrect and the CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal without considering the merits of the evidences submitted. The assessee’s submission that the consultant handled the assessment proceedings in an unprofessional manner also warrants consideration.
Under these facts as discussed above and in the interest of justice, we feel it proper to restore back this matter to the file of AO for fresh decision after admitting the evidences which the assessee may like to bring on record. We order accordingly. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO for fresh decision after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kalaburagi dated 31/08/2015 for the asst. year 2007-08.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
