Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2010-11, declaring an income of Rs. 9,53,100/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made various additions/disallowances, including agriculture expenditure, disallowances under sections 43B and 40(a)(ia), and treated windmill operation and maintenance charges as capital expenditure, assessing total income at Rs. 30,49,053/-. The CIT(A) subsequently sustained these additions without providing specific findings on the assessee's submissions and evidences.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by sustaining the additions without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee and overlooking material evidence and documents filed. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore all disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Challenge to additions/disallowances related to agriculture expenditure, windmill O&M, and other operating expenses; Failure of CIT(A) to consider assessee's evidences and provide adequate opportunity.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 143(2), 142(1), 43B, 40(a)(ia), Rule 34(5) of ITAT Rules 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALEShri. Laxmi Complex,1st Cross Dr.Ambedkar Road,
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 ORDER
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:
The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-2 Vishakhapatnam passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal
challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 6.09.2011 disclosing a total income of Rs.9,53,100/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under the CASS. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has issued the notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec142(1) of 2025. Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi.. the Act to furnish the details and explanations in support of claims made in the return of income filed. The assesse has filed the explanations and details of agriculture income, land holdings, sale bills, TDS deductions, operation and maintenance charges of wind mill and confirmations. Whereas the Assessing officer has dealt on facts at Para 3 & 6 of the order and was not satisfied with the explanations and made additions/ disallowances(i)Agriculture expenditure estimated @15% of agriculture income which works out to Rs.1,09,497/-(ii) disallowance u/sec43B of the Act of Rs.27,483/-(iii) operation and maintenance charges of wind mill of Rs.5,97,139/- treated as capital expenditure (iv) income under profit and gains of the business of Rs.1,78,900/- and (v) disallowance of operating expenses u/sec40(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs.11,82,934/-and finally the A.O assessed the total income of Rs.30,49,053/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2013.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal
, statement of facts, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has sustained the action of the A.O and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment 2025. Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi.. proceedings. The Ld.AR mentioned that the CIT(A) has not dealt on the details, documents, confirmation and evidences filed in the appellate proceedings to substantiate the claims and prayed for allowing the appeal. The Ld.AR supported the submissions with the factual paper book. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The crux of the disputed issues envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the facts and material evidences. The assesse has filed all the details before the lower authorities and the CIT(A) has not considered the documents and information supporting the claim of the assesse. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has dealt on the findings of the AO and there are no findings on the submissions/evidences of the assesse filed in the proceedings referred and has not allowed the grounds of appeal. Therefore, considering the overall facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing and accordingly restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits and the CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.