GANESH BABU MUPPAVARAPU NIRMALA LAXMI,VIJAYAWADA vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee to file the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

Brief facts of the case are that survey operation u/s 133A was conducted in the assessee’s group (MANA group) of cases on 16.03.2014. Consequently, the assessee filed his return of income on 23.12.2016 for the A.Y.2014-15, admitting income of Rs.14,32,310/-. Assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and assessment order was passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2019, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.22,52,310/- by making addition of Rs.9,70,000/- as undisclosed income.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the grounds with regard to addition of Rs.9,70,000/-.

The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the AO erred in treating the disclosure of Rs.16,00,000/- made at the time of survey as additional income and treating the difference amount of Rs.9,70,000/- between the additional income of Rs.16,00,000/- and income of Rs.6,30,000/- admitted under the head ‘other sources’ as undisclosed income. The Ld.AR submitted that the same was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) against the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with material evidences in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that as evident from the orders of the revenue authorities, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same to rebut the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences. The Ld.DR therefore submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition made by the AO. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.22,52,310/- by making an addition of Rs.9,70,000/- to the returned income, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard to rebut the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences and hence, prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings.

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