ASHUTOSH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th February, 2017 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2012-13.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the ex parte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.26,10,227/- made by the Assessing Officer.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, house property and income from other source. It filed its return of income on 29th July, 2012 declaring an income of Rs.88,36,350/-. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.34,97,752/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to substantiate the same. It was explained by the assessee that it has received gross agricultural receipt of Rs.40,28,318/- and which included an amount of Rs.14,79,208/- being sale made at Krishi Upaj Mandi, Lonaksar and the balance amount of Rs.25,49,109/- was sold at the agricultural field itself. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why the agricultural income shown by the assessee on various dates in respect of gawar to the tune of Rs.15,27,365/- and moth to the tune of Rs.10,21,745/- sold on field should not be treated as ‘income from other source’ for lack of supporting evidences. After considering various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the agricultural income of Rs.25,49,109/- as ‘income from other sources.’ Further, out of the expenses so claimed, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.61,118/-. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,14,46,580/-. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide ex parte order passed by him. He, however, has decided the appeal on merit.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).

The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the request of the assessee and supported the order of the CIT(A). She submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue on merit and, therefore, there is no need to give any further relief to the assessee.

We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that despite a number of opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for which the ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.26,10,227/- treating the same as ‘income from other sources.’ It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case before the CIT(A) who has passed the ex parte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.