2015 (4) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 83,71,53,585/- made by the A.O. on account of expenses claimed, but no details in support of its contention had been filed during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by not following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 204 Taxman 106, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to give two stage opportunity under Rule 46A i.e. first before admission of additional evidence and second after admission of additional evidences." 3. Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. Alternatively, the ld. DR submitted that if it is found just and proper then the case may be restored to the file of either to the file of AO or to the file of CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 5. Replying to the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer do not provide due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and the AO completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act in an arbitrarily manner by disallowing entire claim of expenses. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee further pointed out that since the assessee could not get an opportunity of being heard before the AO and some relevant and necessary documents, evidence and explanation, which cou....