Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, dated 24.04.2017 in for the assessment year 2001-02 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143 & 147 of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal however the cruxes of the issues are that:-
(i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in re-opening the assessment U/s.147 of the Act. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs.50,000/- as unexplained investment. (iii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO amounting to Rs.15,550/- as income from other sources.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, earning income from commission and agricultural activities. The assessee filed his return of income in response to notice U/s.142 of the Act on 14.08.2008 admitting income of Rs.18,011/- and agricultural income of Rs.12,60,000/-. Thereafter the assessment was completed U/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 31.12.2009 wherein the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of agricultural income of Rs.15,550/- and treated the same as income from other source and further made an addition of Rs.50,000/- invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The Ld.AO had treated the amount of Rs.15,550/- as income from other source because the inspector’s report revealed that the assessee
had not realized agricultural sale proceeds from certain parties as disclosed by him. Further from the statement of Shri S. Rajendran, land broker, it was revealed that he had retained Rs.50,000/- advance paid by the assessee which was not disclosed to the Revenue.
On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO because though the Ld.CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee of being heard, none appeared before him. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is now in appeal before us.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted before us that due to unavoidable circumstances he could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) when the appeal came up for hearing and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-party order dismissing the appeal of the assessee inlimine. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and prayed for confirming the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities.
After hearing both sides, we do not find merit in the arguments advanced by the Ld.AR. However in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de-nova consideration. We also hereby direct the assessee and his Counsel to co-operate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities promptly in order to expedite their proceedings, failing which they shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 04th September, 2018 at Chennai.