SUDHA NAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with

2. The following grounds raised in Assessee’s AY 2005-06. However, the grounds raised in other 06 appeals are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity, being common in nature, except the difference in the figures.

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs

2,95,000/- made by AO by treating the agricultural income earned by the appellant as unexplained income only on the basis that no proof of having agricultural income was in possession of the appellant without appreciating the fact that the appellant has already considered the said agricultural income in the return of income.

of Income tax (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs

2,95,000/- made by AO by treating the agricultural income earned by the appellant as unexplained income though the learned

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) himself acknowledged the fact in the impugned order that the appellant has sales receipts of agricultural goods sold, proof of ownership of agricultural land and expense incurred in support of agricultural income declared in the return of income.

of Income tax (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs

2,95,000/- made by AO by treating the agricultural income earned by the appellant as unexplained income only on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures that agricultural income shown in the return of income is a contrivance devised by the appellant to plough back unaccounted income into business without bringing in any material on record found during the course of search and seizure operation in support of his allegation.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned Commissioner

of Income tax (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in upholding the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to assess the case of the appellant under section 144 of the Income tax

Act, 1961 without issuing statutory notice under section 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned Commissioner

of Income tax (Appeals) erred both in fact and in law in upholding the validity of assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to assess the case of the appellant under section 144 of the Income tax

Act, 1961 even though the AO has not mentioned the relevant note which informs an assessee that failure on the part an assessee to comply with the terms of notice 142(1) will entail ex-parte assessment in the notice under section 142(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 issued by the AO.

6. That the appellant craves leave to add,

amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. The following grounds raised in Revenue’s AY 2008-09. However, the grounds raised in other two appeals are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity, being common in nature, except the difference in the figures.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.

70,17,500/- out of addition of Rs.

75,92,500/- made on account of unexplained entries appearing in bank account.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts of the case in admitting the additional /

fresh evidences under Rule 46A in respect of addition of Rs. 75,92,500/-.

3(a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

Against the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who during the appellate proceedings has considered the paper book alongwith the submissions, documents / evidencse etc. filed in accordance with section 250(4) of the Act by the aassessee was remanded to the AO for his comments and examination of the same or to produce any evidence or document in rebuttal of the additional evidence, if any produced by the assessee by way of paper book etc. The AO furnished his remand report dated 23.6.2014 offering his comments on the various evidence, documents submissions etc. filed by the assessee. Having examined the records he expressed his reservations also on the admitting of the additional evidence produced before the Ld. CIT(A), because the conditions of Rule 46A has not been fulfilled in the case of the assessee. AO further contended that if at all the additional evidence were to be admitted they could not be done without depth enquiry/ investigation which might take a lot of time. However, he did not point out as to which of the evidence paper etc. were in the nature of additional evidence. After considering the Remand Report, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the aforesaid objection of the Assessee. However, in our considered opinion, the objection on the admission of additional evidence of the AO was valid one and needs to be enquired/investigated/verification in depth which was not done by him.

5.1 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as explained above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are against the principle of natural justice and, therefore, the issues involved in the Appeals filed by the Assessee deserve to be set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, under the law, after detailed enquiry / investigation/verification of the each and every evidence including the additional evidence filed u/R 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and also produce all the documentary evidences before him to substantiate its case. As a result, all the 07 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01-12-2017.