2019 (3) TMI 1758 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee was not provided copy of second remand report inspite of specific request made to the learned CIT(A) - HELD THAT - Letter dated 15/02/2017 is obviously after the first remand report dated 15/01/2016. Therefore, one fact is clear that learned CIT(A) must have directed the Assessing Officer to file second remand report and that is why the Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish certain information which were furnished to the assessee vide letter dated nil, placed at pages 24 to 30 of the paper book where, in response to the letter of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had submitted comprehensive reply. After that the assessee has been requesting to the learned CIT(A) to furnish a copy of second remand report which is apparent from various request letters, placed at pages 14 to 18 of the paper book. Even the assessee requested Pr.CIT vide letter dated 20/03/2018, copy placed at pages 12 13 of the paper book, but again the assessee was not provided copy of second remand report. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to learned CIT(A) who should pass a fresh order after considering the second remand report and after considering the rejoinder to remand report by the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of CIT(A) regarding non-provision of second remand report to assessee.

In this case, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the non-provision of the second remand report. The appellant argued that despite specific requests made to the CIT(A), the second remand report was not provided. The appellant's representative highlighted that the Assessing Officer had submitted the first remand report, and subsequently, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to submit a second remand report. The appellant provided comprehensive replies to the questionnaire during the remand report process. However, the CIT(A) passed the order without providing a copy of the second remand report to the assessee, despite repeated requests. The appellant even approached the Principal CIT for intervention, but no action was taken. The appellant requested that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside, and directions be given to provide the second remand report for proper confrontation.

The Departmental Representative contended that the remand report had already been provided to the assessee. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the first remand report was issued by the Assessing Officer, followed by directions from the CIT(A) for a second remand report. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) must have instructed the Assessing Officer to file the second remand report, as evidenced by the subsequent correspondence. Despite the appellant's comprehensive responses to the Assessing Officer's queries, the CIT(A) did not provide a copy of the second remand report to the assessee, despite multiple requests and even an appeal to the Principal CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order, instructing the CIT(A) to consider both the second remand report and the appellant's rejoinder to the remand report.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the CIT(A) to reconsider the case in light of the second remand report and the appellant's submissions.