Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Conclusion 5.1 Looked at from any angle, therefore, the impugned order is not maintainable in law. That we also understand to be, in substance, the Revenue's grievance as well, who though, no doubt, has been reckless/not exquisite in drafting the grounds of appeal, even as the ld. CIT-DR, to be fair, while arguing the appeal, did touch upon issues impinging thereon. The same cannot, however, constrain us from culling out/formulating issues arising for determination in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly given the law in the matter, which stands also delineated in the ensuing part of this order. In fact, while an omission to observe rule 46A, being mandatory, would also render the impugned order as not maintainable, and liable to be set aside with a view to render opportunity to the AO, we have found basic structural defects in the impugned order in-as-much as it is sub silentio on various aspects fundamental and basic to the assessment, seriously impugned, or, in any case, found as factually indeterminate by the AO, ITO v. Neeraj Aggarwal who was in the absence of the relevant materials/explanations unable to carry out verification on several aspects of the assessment. Under the circumstances, we only consider it proper to restore the assessment back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law - both procedural and substantive, after hearing both the parties before him. Further, should the assessee plead for opportunity for furnishing materials/explanations with regard thereto, the ld. CIT(A) shall consider and first decide if it permissible in law to do so, i.e., given it to be a case of a best judgment assessment. Needless to add, his finding as to the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by issue and service of a valid notice u/s. 143(2), not challenged, shall obtain. We decide accordingly.