UMESH SHRIKANT SHETYE,RATNAGIRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

Date of Hearing : 27-01-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : These appeals preferred by the assessees emanates from separate orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) Kolhapur dated 12-11-2013 and 18-11-02013 for A.Y. 2009-10.

3. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) Kolhapur dated 12-11-2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 raising following grounds:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the following additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted as the same are arbitrary, perverse and devoid of merits. i) An addition of Rs. 8,05,700/- made on alleged ground of excess cash. ii) An addition of Rs. 6,43,700/- made on account of alleged receivables. iii) An addition of Rs. 18,75,600/- made on account of alleged investment in purchase of gold ornaments. iv) An addition of Rs. 47,86,200/- made on account of alleged investment in furniture and interior. v) The addition of Rs. 3,27,600/-, R. 2,10,000/- and Rs. 2,07,480/- made on account of alleged property income. vi) An addition of Rs. 9,16,000/- made on account of income from Mangal Karyalaya. vii) An addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- made on account of alleged commission from catering contract. viii) An addition of Rs. 6,72,600/- as income from other sources by disallowing the agricultural income.

2. Without prejudice to above and by way of an alternate submission, the appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant for non-attendance before the learned CIT(A). In the circumstances the appellant prays that the matter may please be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.” : Mrs. Ujwala Umesh Shetye

1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the following additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted s the same are arbitrary, perverse and devoid of merits. i) An addition of Rs. 4,32,791`/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure. ii) Disallowance of interest of . 1,50,000/- paid on housing loan. iii) Addition of Rs. 37,97,400/- made on the basis of disclosure made during the course of survey action.

2. Without prejudice to above and by way of an alternate submission, the appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause for the appellant for non-attendance before the ld. CITA(a). In the circumstances the appellant prays that the matter may please be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

5. We have heard the rival submissions, considered the facts and circumstances in this case and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that in both these cases, there is an ex parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) thus in effect the issues were not adjudicated upon substantially by the first appellate authority. It was also submitted by the learned A.R at the time of hearing that even before the A.O certain evidences that were called for from the assessee, however, could not be submitted before the A.O. That on this background, it was prayed by the assessee that the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O for re-adjudication wherein the assessee would be able to file substantive evidences and the matter may be re-adjudicated on merits. The learned D.R fairly conceded to the arguments raised by the assessee. In view thereof, in the interest of justice, we set aside the respective orders of the learned CIT(A) in both these cases and remit the matters to the file of the A.O for re-adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice and at the same time, we direct the assessee to file all relevant documents/evidences before A.O so that the cases may be decided as per law and merits.