SHRI M.SATYANARAYANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the Learned Assessing officer and the Hon. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'lower authorities') is bad in law to the extent the same is prejudicial to the Appellant.

2. The action of the Hon. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in disposing of the appeal 'Ex-Parte' is bad in law.

3. The lower authorities erred in fact and in law in disallowing an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- being cost of cows and calves purchased in the AY 2014-15 by considering the same as capital expenditure.

4. Without prejudice to the generality of Ground No. 2, the lower authorities erred in not considering that the cost of cows and calves purchased in the AY 2014-15 is an allowable expenditure as per section 36(1)(vi) of the Act.

5. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 2 and No. 3, the lower authorities erred in not considering that the cost of cows and calves purchased in the AY 2014-15 is an allowable expenditure as per section 28 of the Act.

6. The lower authorities erred in fact and in law in disallowing an expenditure of Rs.2,99,850/- incurred towards commissioning of the borewell without considering that after commissioning and erection, the borewell got dried up. 7. Without prejudice to the generality of Ground No. 5, the lower authorities erred in fact and in law in disallowing an expenditure of Rs.2,99,850/- incurred towards commissioning of the borewell without considering that the same is deductible under section 37 of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the generality of Ground No. 5, the lower authorities erred in not considering that the expenditure of Rs.2,99,850/- incurred towards commissioning of the borewell is an allowable expenditure under section 28 of the Act. The Appellant prays your Honour to take the appeal on record and grant appropriate relief. The Appellant also prays for a personal hearing in this matter. Further, the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal so as to enable to decide this appeal according to law.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of the assessee that the impugned order of CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. In this regard, he submitted an affidavit of Shri S. Ranganath, CA who has appeared before CIT (A) as AR of the assessee. He submitted that on 04.10.2017, the last hearing was fixed by the ld. CIT (A) and he went to the office of the CIT (A) on that date but he was informed by the office staff of CIT (A) that CIT (A) was not present in the office and was informed that hearing would be posted again. But no further opportunity was granted by CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed by CIT(A) on 05.10.2017 without granting any further opportunity. He submitted that under these facts, it is apparent that adequate opportunity was not provided by CIT (A) and therefore, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.