LATE U.NAGI REDDY, L/R BY SON SRI N.M.SURESH,BELLARY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BELLARY

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that he seeks time to get the documents about agricultural income translated and file before the tribunal as a paper book and this is essential because, in all these appeals, the issues are depending on the quantum of agricultural income of the assessee and his family. At this juncture it was pointed out by the bench that even if time is allowed and the learned AR of the assessee files the translated copy of the documents, matter will be required to be restored back to CIT (A) because such document was not made available before him. In reply, he submitted that learned CIT (A) has noted in Para 5.1 of his order for A. Y. 2007 – 08 that the assessee has stated in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted cash flow statement explaining the source of income for investment but the A.O. has not verified the same and passed the assessment order and in spite of this, learned CIT (A) has also not considered the cash flow statement by saying that the A.O. had not mentioned anything about cash flow statement. He submitted that when it was claimed before CIT (A) that cash flow statement was submitted before the A.O. in course of assessment proceedings, he should have called for the assessment records to examine the veracity of this claim and if it was correct that cash flow statement was submitted before the A.O., the issues should have been decided after considering the cash flow statement. He submitted that there is similar observation of CIT (A) in remaining years also. Learned DR of the revenue supported orders of the authorities below.

I have considered rival submissions. I find force in the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee that when it was claimed before CIT (A) that cash flow statement was submitted before the A.O. in course of assessment proceedings, he should have called for the assessment records to examine the veracity of this claim and if it was correct that cash flow statement was submitted before the A.O., the issues should have been decided by him after considering those cash flow statements. Even if no such cash flow statements were filed before the A.O., I feel that the assessee should be asked to file it along with evidences in support of the cash flow statements and the issues should be decided thereafter. Hence, I set aside all these orders of CIT (A) and restore back the entire matter in all these years to his file for afresh decision after examining the cash flow statements and its supporting evidences and he may obtain remand report from the A.O. if considered necessary. Needless to say, he should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.