DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-2(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,98,87,314 made by the AO on the count of capital gain, without considering the submission/ explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.15,13,600 made by the AO on the count of denial of exemption u/s54F claimed by the assessee, without considering the submission/ explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.37,70,000 made by the AO on the count of cash deposit into bank u/s69A as unexplained money, without considering the submission/ explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.75,01,876 made by the AO on the count of credits appearing in bank account u/s69A as unexplained credits, without considering the submission/ -explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,25,400 made by the AO on the count of income shown as income from other sources in the ROI as unexplained money u/s69A, without considering the submission/ explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,22,600 made by the AO on the count of agriculture income shown in the ROI as unexplained money u/s69A, without considering the submission/ explanation submitted before him and without giving any reason for upholding the addition made by the AO; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted."

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed his Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 30.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.5,25,400/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny. The exempted incomes declared in the ITR by the assessee are (i) agricultural income of Rs.3,22,600/- and (ii) Long Term Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.62,17,600/- on sale of agricultural land. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) show- caused the assessee to substantiate the claim of exempted incomes with corroboratory evidence. The assessee filed replies as mentioned in the assessment order. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the said submissions of the assessee; therefore, he taxed the LTCG by invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also taxed the unexplained investment in property, unexplained cash deposits and credits in bank account and the unsubstantiated claim of agricultural income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal as under: “5.1 Ground No.1:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (‘Ld. AR’) of the assessee drew our attention to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) had not given detailed reasoning for agreeing with the order of Ld. AO while dismissing the appeal. He submitted that the impugned order is non- speaking; therefore, the same deserved to be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Ld. Sr. DR was not present when the matter was called for hearing. However, the matter was taken as heard considering the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee after a careful perusal of the material available on the record.

We have heard the Ld. AR and have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal as required to be done in accordance with the provision of section 250(6) of the Act. As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned orders before him/her, whether or not the issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.).

Considering the facts of the case in entirety, in the interest of justice and without offering any comment on merit of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We therefore, order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.