Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAOShri V.Vidyasagar,
O R D E R
Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore, dated 10/03/2014 for the assessment year 2008-09.
The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The impugned order of assessment is liable to set aside in so far as it is incorrect, improper, irregular, opposed to facts and circumstances of the case and opposed to the law.
Page 2 of 4 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- made by the Respondent Assessing Officer towards provision made by the Appellant in his books of account under the head Liquidated damages for the A.Y.2008-09 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the aforesaid disallowance of Rs. 24,00,000/- on the ground that the impugned assessment order is totally silent as to how the disallowance was made and the AC failed to come up with a remand report, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.4,32,450/- made by the Respondent Assessing Officer by treating the Agricultural Income declared by the Appellant as Non- Agricultural Income for the A.Y.2008-09 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the aforesaid addition of Rs. 4,32,450/- on the sole ground that the appellant has not raised any ground of appeal, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences and explanations adduced by the appellant.
6. That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.25,176/- u/s 234A is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for.
7. That the impugned levy of interest of Rs.2,07,702/- u/s 234B is liable to set aside in so far as the appellant is not liable there for.
Page 3 of 4 3. Briefly, facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is in the business of development of layouts. Return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 14/11/2008 disclosing an income of Rs.1,98,760/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) vide order dated 06/12/2010 at a total income of Rs.32,97,970/-. While doing so, the AO had disallowed liquidated damages of Rs.24 lakhs debited to profit and loss account, disbelieving agricultural income made addition of Rs.4,32,450/- as income from other sources. Addition of Rs.2,66,759/- was also made unexplained expenditure on Credit card transactions. The AO observed in the assessment order that the assessee had neither complied with any notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] nor filed any details in support of the return of income filed by him. Though the assessment order was stated to have been under the provisions of section 143(3), it was an ex- parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by this assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the additions except in respect of addition on account of transactions of credit card of Rs.2,66,759/-. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
Page 4 of 4 5. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing material on record, we find that admittedly during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had not co-operated with the AO by filing necessary information/evidence in support of return of income. Notice u/s 142 of the Act has gone un- responded. For adjudication of grounds of appeal before us, it requires verification of evidence and material and therefore, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case to be sent back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.