SRI KRISHNA PRAJWAL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assesseeis as under.

1. Originally the jurisdiction was with CIT (A)-5 and two notices were received from the said office and both were attended. There is a change in jurisdiction from CIT (A)-5 to CIT (A)-10 and the appellant has received only one notice fixing the hearing on 12/09/2017 and no other notices have been received by the appellant as stated by the CIT (A). To the notice issued fixing hearing on 28th of Feb 2018 the appellant could not attend since the parents were ill. Thus there was a reasonable cause for non compliance if any. Be that as it may, the appeal has to be decided on merits and the appellant produces necessary evidences in support of the claim that the loans were through banking channels and the loanee is a taxpayer with PAN and assessed to tax. Hence it is prayed that the Hon ITAT be pleased to grant reasonable opportunity to produce the evidence and allow this appeal in the interest of equity and justice.”

Page 2 of 3 3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that this is true that assessee did not appear before CIT(A) but he pointed out that as per para 5.3 of the order of CIT(A), the issue has been decided by CIT(A) in cryptic manner without considering grounds of appeal and statement of facts etc. submitted by assessee before CIT(A) along with the appeal filed by assessee. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue submitted that in the facts of present case as per which it is noted by CIT(A) in para 5.3 of its order that several notices were issued and duly served on assessee, it is not justified to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A).

4. I have considered the rival submissions. For ready reference, I reproduce the paras 5.2 and 5.3 of the order of CIT (A). “5.2 On the hand the appellant has submitted in the statement of facts as under: Statement of Facts: 1. For the assessment year 2012-13 the learned A.0 completed the assessment by adding Rs. 30,44,915/- as unexplained investments in the purchase of Agricultural lands by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant has not furnished the details of sources of investment. Case of the Appellant: 1. The Appellant has taken loan through cheques which have passed through the Appellant Bank account and the same has been invested in the agricultural Land. The loanee is a tax payer and has got PAN and he is also assessed to tax. Thus the sources for the investment in the Agriculture land has been fully explained and therefore to be deleted. 5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the observation of the AO. In this regard repeated opportunities were given to the appellant to present his case. From the speed post tracking record it is evident that notices were duly served on the appellant but he chose not to respond to the notices of hearing.In the absence of any explanation/evidence whatsoever for the investment in the agricultural land, I am of the considered opinion that the AO is justified in making an addition of Rs.30,44,915/-. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO and the addition of Rs.30,44,915/- stands confirmed.”

Page 3 of 3 5. From the above paras reproduced from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that it is noted by CIT(A) that the assessee’s case was this that assessee has taken loan through cheques which have passed through the assessee’s bank account and the same has been invested in the agriculture land. There is no finding given by CIT(A) on this aspect of the matter as to whether this claim of the assessee is correct or not. Hence I feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no adjudication is called for at the present stage regarding the merit of the assessee’s case.