Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a doctor, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 2,10,000/-. The AO completed the assessment by making additions of Rs. 27,38,921/-, and the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order. The appellant argued that the AO's order was cryptic and based on surmises.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was cryptic, incoherent, and lacked application of mind. The appellant's counsel requested the matter to be restored to the AO for readjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the AO's assessment order was justified and properly reasoned, or if it suffered from lack of application of mind and was based on conjectures and surmises.
Sections Cited
250, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Year: 2017-18 Muthusami Balasubramaniam, Income Tax Officer, No.34, Agraharam Street, Vs. Ward-1, Tiruchengode, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 211. [PAN: AGCPB1728Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Assessee by : Shri Sricharan, CA प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT ुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062363762(1) dated 11.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 11.03.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
ITA No.1664/Chny/2023 :- 2 -:
2.0 The main issue arising from grounds of appeal Nos.1 to 11, are regarding different additions aggregating to Rs.27,38,921/-. As evident from the assessment order dated 29.12.2019, the appellant, claiming to be Doctor by profession and also earning rental and agricultural income, had filed return of income u/s142(1) declaring income of Rs.2,10,000/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment after making certain additions at Rs.29,48,921/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO after recording that the appellant had not appropriately defended his case. The Ld. DR supported the orders of Ld.AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material available on records. It is evident from the assessment order that the appellant had not appropriately complied with details called for by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO on his part has also not done any worthwhile or rather any enquiry before arriving at his conclusions. The order of the Ld. AO has been found to be very cryptic, in coherent, and non-speaking order having no application of mind. The order of the Ld. AO is predominantly based upon conjectures and surmises. Before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, appellant’s response was not forthcoming and hence he proceeded to confirm the order of the Ld. AO by concurring with his findings. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assesse requested for the matter to be restored to the Ld. AO for readjudication with the assurance of full compliance to be made. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and with a view to :- 3 -: allow fair play the matter deserves to be readjudicated by the Ld. AO in the light of evidences which the assesse may like to present. Accordingly, the order of lower authorities, hitherto passed are set aside, and the Ld. AO is directed to pass fresh assessment order de novo after giving all opportunities of being heard to the assesse. The assesse shall comply with all the notices of the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance by the assesse shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 4.0 In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 11th, September-2024.