MR. PRATAPA GOUDA PATIL,MASKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , RAICHUR

The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal out of which ground Nos.1 & 6 are general in nature. In ground No.2, counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that if the Hon’ble Bench will grant one more opportunity to the assessee, the assessee will argue his case on merits before the ld.

Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of revenue could not seriously object to the prayer of the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that in this case, the assessee has filed its return of income on 13.1.2021 declaring an income of Rs.22,39,350/- and agricultural income of Rs.34,06,800/. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called for the details of agricultural income from the assessee. However, the assessee could not be able to substantiate the genuineness of agricultural income before the AO. Accordingly, the AO taxed the entire agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. We observe that before ld. CIT(A), no one appeared from the side of assessee, even after the issuance of four notices from the office of ld. CIT(A). We further observe that though it is mentioned in the order of ld. CIT(A) that four notices were issued to the assessee. However, it has not been pointed in categorical terms that as to whether any notice was actually served upon the assessee regarding the hearing of the appeal before ld. CIT(A). Be that as it may, we further observe that the ld. CIT(A) has also not passed the order in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, considering all the facts ad circumstances of the case, we restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.