SHRI DEEPAK GURUNATH GOJAGEKAR,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), BELAGAVI

O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.08.2018, passed by the CIT(A), Belagavi for the assessment year 2015-2016. Common grounds have been taken in both the appeals. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the grounds raised

in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2015-2016 shall be taken into consideration for deciding both the appeals. The serial number of grounds of appeal filed separately for the A.Y.2015-2016 by the assessee along with Form No.36 starts from 9 to 13, which reads as under :-

9. The assessment order passed by the respondent contains material contradiction in the form of contradicting opinions.

10. The amount of Rs.51,00,000/- is declared by the appellant with sufficient explanation as Income from Other Sources.

11. No reason whatsoever is given by the respondent for rejecting the sufficient explanation provided by the appellant. Hence, 2 assessment order passed by the respondent is a non-speaking order. A non-speaking order is illegal, unjustified and untenable in the eyes of the Law.

12. Section 115BBE as amended with effect from 01/04/2017 cannot be applied retrospectively. Hence, disallowance of set of Business Loss of Rs.3,25,860/- against the Gross Total Income is unjustified and untenable.

13. The lower appellate authority ought to have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. But it has dismissed on merits without hearing the appellant. The same is bad in law and requires interference by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

2. This is stay granted matter. In both the appeals, at the outset, the learned. AR drew our attention to the order passed by the CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) had passed the order giving appeal effect at para 4 of page 2 of the order. It was fairly submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee would be satisfied if the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the opportunity be granted to the assessee to file the evidence or documents and make submission before the CIT(A) in support of his case.

3. Per Contra, learned DR has no objection for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A).

4. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, from the perusal of the paragraph 4 at page 2 of the CIT(A)’s order, it is clear that after issuing notice to the assessee the CIT(A) had proceeded to decide the appeal ex- parte without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to agitate and argue the matter before him. In our considered opinion it is necessary for the CIT(A) to give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to appear and argue the matter before him. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of all the