RANGASAMY JAYANTHI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), SALEM, SALEM

From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer (In short ‘AO’) vide order u/s 143(3) dated 06.12.2019 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Act’) made an addition of Rs.13,40,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 read with 115BBE and also estimated the agricultural income at Rs.5,50,000/- of the Act. Upon further appeal, the assessee filed written submissions on 31.10.2023 but the same was not found acceptable hence rejected by the by the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed written submissions on 31.10.2023 but the same was not considered and dealt point wise by the first appeal authority. Ld. Counsel further contended that while passing assessment order, AO has estimated the agricultural income at Rs.5,50,000/- of the Act hence prayed for remanding back the appeal to the AO for denovo assessment.

Per contra, Ld. JCIT-DR Mr. S. Easwar relied upon the orders of lower authorities and pleaded for dismissal of appeal.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating appeal has neither recorded the contentions of the assessee made on 31.10.2023 through written submissions nor given findings thereon. We also find that there was no proper and adequate opportunity given to assessee to place on record the material evidence to discharge onus of proving during assessment proceedings. Therefore, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case forthwith without any fail failing which AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment on merits.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in 2017-2018 stands allowed for a statistical purposes.