THE RATYOUR KRISHI SEWA SAHKARI SABHA SAMITI,DHABHOTA vs. ITO, BADDI

In response to the notice of hearing, an application for adjournment has been filed, however after going through the record, we do not find any reason to adjourn the hearing. A.Y.2013-14 2

With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out that appeal is time barred by 91 days and application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee alongwith affidavit of one Shri Krishan Singh, who was the Secretary of the assessee Society. It has been pleaded that during the relevant time, he was facing challenges at his family. His daughter-in-law has lost sight in one eye and because of his pre-occupance in her treatment, he could not file appeal. After looking to the explanation given by the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.

A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that income of the assessee has been computed by the AO as under: Subject to the above remarks, total Income of the assessee is computed as under:- Net profit as per P & L a/c Rs. 80,869/- Add-Provision of NPA Rs. 1,74,160/- Total Income Rs.2,55,029/- Assessed at total Income of Rs.2,55,030/- u/s 147/144 of the IT. Act, 1961. Charge interest as per rules. Issue requisite documents.

Appeal to the CIT (Appeals), did not bring any relief to the assessee.

A perusal of the record would reveal that both the impugned orders were ex-parte i.e. assessment has been framed u/s 144 and appeal has been dismissed by the CIT (Appeals) for want of prosecution. Sub-clause (6) of Section 250 contemplates that CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in respect of her conclusion on those points, but ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to adhere this mandatory procedure. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the assessment order is also an ex- parte order, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore all these issues to the file of AO. We further direct that AO would not explore any other issue except two additions made by him. The assessee will be at liberty to raise objections against re-opening of assessment. It would also be taken into consideration that no new addition is to be made to the income, in case he does not accept the contentions of the assessee. In other words, income A.Y.2013-14 4 determined by the AO would not exceed in the set aside assessment.

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