SAMATHA ADAPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,17,370/- which included salary income of Rs.2,53,709/- and agricultural income of Rs.60,00,000/-. She revised her return on the same day, reducing the agricultural income to Rs.5,90,000. Information was received by the department regarding credits of Rs.42,00,000/- in her bank account, with no evidence supporting the agricultural income claimed. Hence, the case of the assessee was reopened, and multiple notices were issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the assessee did not respond. The assessee failed to substantiate her claim of agricultural income, and hence, the said amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was treated as income from other sources. Further, Rs.42,00,000/- was added as unexplained money under section 69A. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated for both misreporting and unexplained income, and final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.8,07,370/-.

Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee.

When the matter was called upon, neither the assessee nor her counsel was present.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this case, as the assessee failed to furnish information in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act with valid supporting documents, even after grant of several opportunities, Assessing Officer denied assessee’s claim of agricultural income at Rs.5,90,000/- and treated the same as income from other sources and added the same to the income from salary and thus, determined the total income at Rs.8,07.370/-. On perusal of the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A), I found that ld.CIT(A) passed order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. The merits of the assessee’s appeal before the ld.CIT(A) have neither been discussed nor decided by the ld.CIT(A). From para 5 to 7 of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is clear that ld.CIT(A) was forced to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record, as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee even after granting several opportunities. In view of the above reasons, in our view, the ends of justice will be met if the matter is remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue after considering the documents available on record and affording the opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be deposited by the assessee in the account of Prime Minister National Relief Fund within one month or from the date of receipt of this order or whichever is earlier.

The assessee shall be at liberty to file documents, if any, as required for proving her case and the Assessing Officer shall consider the evidence, if any, filed by the assessee. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall examine those documents / evidence filed by the assessee and also the other documents available on record. After considering the documents filed by the assessee and the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a detailed speaking order dealing with the contentions of the assessee. I have not adjudicated the other grounds on merits as I am setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.