AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
The application for stay was listed today and on hearing both sides it was found that the assessee had sought stay for demand of AY; 2021-22, however, assessee while challenging the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) has raised legal grounds as well and without admitting the evidence filed under Rule 46A, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal.
The Bench is of the considered view that as assessee is an individual and additional evidences were vital for determination of the issue, the ends of justice would need to restore the issues on merits as well as law, to the files of ld. CIT(A).
The appeal of the assessee was also taken up for hearing. The issue involved is the addition which was made in the hands of the assessee in an ex-parte assessment order wherein disallowance u/s 54 was made and addition u/s 69 has been made.
Ld. DR agreed to the proposition that given the nature of issues involved and as assessee was ex-parte before assessing officer, additional evidences deserves to be admitted, thereupon ld. CIT(A) should have passed the order.
In the light of aforesaid we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes and restore the issue on merits to the files of ld. CIT(A) to allow additional evidences of the assessee and thereafter to consider the issue on law and on merits and pass order afresh. Consequently, stay application filed become infructuous and dismissed.