Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, had his assessment completed ex-parte under section 144/144B by the AO, treating his disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 34.34 lakhs as income from other sources due to non-compliance. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits or providing proper opportunity of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all grounds on merits after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and enabling them to file all documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating the grounds on merits, particularly regarding the nature of the assessee's income (agricultural vs. other sources).
Sections Cited
Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 282 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.12.2023 which has emanated from the order of AO, NEAC, Delhi, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 15.04.2021.
The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and has raised an objection that the ld. First appellate authority has disposed of the appeal without examining the merits of the case and without allowing proper opportunity of hearing.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is an agriculturist and has filed his return of income disclosing agricultural income of Rs.34.34 lakhs and the case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of agricultural income. However, in course of assessment proceedings, in absence of any response or any compliance to various notices issued by the department, the assessment has been completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on a total income of Rs.45.80 lakhs as income from other sources.
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. First appellate authority has been dismissed without adjudication on the grounds contained in Form No. 35, in absence of any submission or any response to notices on four separate occasions.
Now, the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal and the ld. AR of the assesse was aggrieved on the ground that no proper opportunity was allowed by the ld. First appellate authority and the grounds of appeal
contained in the memorandum of appeal has not been adjudicated on merits.
6. He further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and has been earning and disclosing agricultural income in all his previous years and the appellate authority as well as the AO before passing an order should have made proper examination and verification from the office of the Tehsildar Ajnala regarding the agriculture activities carried out by the assessee and it was further submitted that the assessee is the owner of 96 Kila of agriculture land on which agricultural activities is carried out and also carried out agricultural activities on lease hold land on contract which is measuring about 398 Kila. 6.1 He further submitted that the bank statement of the assessee is indicative of the fact that payments are received from one Ajnala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. on account of sale proceeds of sugarcane and he submitted that the total agricultural income has been disclosed by the assessee at Rs.45.80 lakhs, against which agricultural expenditure has been claimed at 11.45 lakhs resulting in net agricultural income of Rs.34.34 lakhs. 6.2 He further drew our attention to the computation sheets issued by the department to point out that the AO has considered the returned income as income from other sources and has taxed the same accordingly, and at the same time he has also considered net agriculture income of Rs.34.34 lakhs for rate purpose, and this very action of the AO is contradictory. 6.3 Before concluding, the ld. AR submitted that it is also not ascertainable as to which e-mail id the notice has been issued by the ld. First appellate authority because notice has not been received in the e-mail id provide in Form No. 35 as EXM@CARAMAN.IN.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record and we are of the opinion that in the instant case, interest of justice will be served if the