Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE
O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2013 of the CIT(Appeals)-II, Bangalore inter alia on the following grounds:-
“1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the impugned order passed by the learned ITO, Ward-18(1), Bangalore is one without jurisdiction in as much as the appellant is regularly borne on the records of the learned ITO, Ward 1(4), Bangalore and had filed his return of income for the year under appeal before the issue of notice u/s. 142[1] of the Act by the learned ITO, Ward-18(1) and consequently, the impugned order of assessment passed ought to have been cancelled.
3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/- from out of the original addition Rs.70,00,000/- made as unexplained investment in property under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled.
5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed ex parte order without serving the notice upon the assessee and made the addition of the entire investment in the hands of the assessee of Rs.77 lakhs. Before the CIT(Appeals), though the assessee has contended that property was jointly purchased by the assessee, but this aspect was not properly examined by the CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(A), evidence was placed on record with regard to sources of investment also. In support of his contentions, he has filed a copy of the statement of affairs along with return of income, in which the investment and sources were also declared by the assessee. The written submissions filed before the CIT(A) were filed before us in support of his contentions. The ld. counsel for the assessee further contended that since the assessee has filed evidence in support of source of funds, no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee.
The ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(Appeals).
We have carefully examined the material on record in light of the rival submissions. We find that the AO has not examined the issue as he has passed ex parte order against the assessee, whereas the CIT(Appeals) has gone with the remand report without looking into the explanation furnished by the assessee. In light of these facts, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh adjudication by the CIT(Appeals). We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of June, 2016.