SANGAMNATH AGRO INDUSTRIES,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GADAG

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. Tax effect relating to eachGround of Grounds of Appeal appeal (see note below)

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) is illegal, baseless and opposed to the factsof the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Rs. 1,79,490 addition of 4,58,357 towardsinterest expenditure.

3. The learned CIT Appeals has confirming an addition of Rs. 43,663 as cash payments Rs. 17,098 excess of Rs.20000 as per section40A (3) of the Income tax Act.

4. The Learned CITAppeals has erred confirmed an addition ofRs. 1,12,171 as Rs. 43,926 Gross Profit declared at the time of survey.

Page 2 of 3 5. The assesseeprays leave to add any more grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 2,40,514

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order of CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. It is also submitted that as noted by CIT (A) in Para 3 of his order, six dates of hearing were fixed by CIT (A) and the assessee could not make compliance. In this regard, he submitted that on pages 24 & 25 of paper book is the affidavit of Shri Jayadev Totappa Yelamali, one of the partners of the assessee firm in which he explained that he has appeared before CIT (A) along with his auditor and presented the case of the assessee and written submissions were also filed. It is also stated in the affidavit that ld. CIT (A) said that no new evidences will be entertained at the appellate stage and in spite of this, it was submitted by assessee before CIT (A) that assessee has already filed all the details before the AO and what they are filing is only extracts from the books of accounts of the firm which were produced before the AO for verification. He also pointed out that it is also stated in the affidavit that it was explained before CIT(A) orally that the business has been closed and any further communication be sent to the auditor of the assessee firm and after that, no notice was received by the assessee. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that this is noted by CIT (A) in Para 3 of his order that six dates of hearing were fixed by him but it is stated by CIT (A) in this Para that assessee failed to appear or make any submission. As against this, as per the affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm, it is stated that he had appeared before CIT(A) along with the auditor and filed written submission also and explained the case. Copy of written submissions said to have been filed before CIT (A) are available onthe paper book. Considering all these facts, I feel it proper that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity for proper compliance and hence, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing

Page 3 of 3 adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.