AMIT KUMAR NEHRA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MEERUT

(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Advocate & Shri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2018 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7th December, 2017 of the CIT(A), Meerut, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.

The assessee further submitted that he has also flower plantation in 10 bigha of land.

From the copies of Khasra/Khatoni filed by the assessee along with copies of agreement/contract with different parties, the Assessing Officer observed that the agricultural income declared at Rs.22,60,000/- is not justifiable in view of the land held by the assessee. Further, the lease deeds filed by the assessee regarding agreement/contract are not registered documents and are merely self serving documents. In view of the above and considering the fact that the assessee is having approximately 30 bigha of land, the Assessing Officer estimated the income from agriculture at Rs.4,50,000/- as reasonable. He accordingly, made addition of Rs.18,07,843/- u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained cash deposit. Since the assessee did not file any submission before the CIT(A) and was seeking adjournment from time to time and on certain other dates there was no attendance and no written explanation or details were filed before the CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee observing that order of the Assessing Officer has not been controverted despite giving several opportunities and the order remains uncontested. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:-

but rejected the grounds of appeal filed thereafter, wherein the counsel of the appellant/assessee challenged re-opening of the case U/s 148 of the Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) Meerut, U.P., erred in confirming the addition on account of alleged deposit cas of Rs. 22,57,935/- in the Bank account by the assessee.

3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, that while sustaining the above said additions the Ld. CIT (A) Meerut, U.P. ought to have appreciated that there was no valid material or basis for having made the said additions which is bad in law and against the principal of natural justice.

4. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, that the Ld. CIT (A) Meerut has erred in law while justifying the treatment of undisclosed income by not even mentioning in the order that the assessee is not an individual as has been treated by the Assessing Officer, Ward 1 (1) Meerut, and did not even listen and take into accounts the averments made by the Counsel of the appellant/assessee.

3. After hearing the rival arguments made by both the sides and perusing the material available on record, I find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,07,843/- u/s 69 of the IT Act on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the earning of agricultural income of Rs.22,57,843/-. I find the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee since the assessee did not file any details before him and the order of the Assessing Officer remained uncontested. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and explain his case failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.