L.KRISHNASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, DINDIGUL

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai dated 20.06.2016 in for the assessment year 2005-06 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) & 147 of the Act.

The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal, however for the sake of convenience the concise grounds are reframed herein below for adjudication:-

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of bus transport, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 13.09.2005 admitting total income of Rs.1,12,400/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,45,000/. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act on 09.12.2006. Subsequently notice was issued U/s. 148 of the Act on 10.09.2007 and finally assessment was completed on 15.12.2008, wherein the Ld.AO disallowed agricultural income Rs.45,000/- and treated the same as income from other source and further made addition of Rs.3,50,000/- & Rs.50,000/- U/s.68 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, it appears that neither the assessee nor his Representative co-operated with the Ld.CIT(A) in the proceedings. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) decided to disposed off the appeal based on the materials available on record and by obtaining a remand report from the Ld.AO dated 09.11.2015. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by treating Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.4,43,095/- & Rs.1,50,000/- as the unexplained investments of the assessee.

At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not provided proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. He further submitted that the assessee was not able to present his case effectively before the Ld.AO in the remand proceedings. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration, thereby providing the assessee of an opportunity of being heard. The Ld.DR stoutly opposed to the submission of Ld.AR and prayed for confirming the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the Ld.AR had not promptly co-operated before the Ld.CIT(A) which resulted in enhancement of income from Rs.5,57,400/- assessed by the Ld.AO to Rs.16,50,495/-. We further find that the assessee is a small time bus operator who has initially admitted income of Rs.1,12,400/-. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, though we do not appreciate the submissions of the Ld.AR that the Ld.CIT(A) has not provided proper hearing to the assessee of being heard, taking note of the nature of business of the assessee and his financial stature, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration, thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. However, we also caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Revenue in their proceedings in order to expedite their order failing which the Ld.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials before them.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.