SUBHASH SADASHIV SATHE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE, PUNE

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of agricultural products like sweet corn, frozen cord etc. The appellant filed the Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.3,27,240/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 20.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) at a total income of Rs.13,52,050/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.10,24,811/- disbelieving the agricultural income for the failure of assessee to substantiate the agricultural income.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

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

We heard the ld. Sr.DR and perused the relevant material on record. On mere perusal of the contents of Para 4 of the impugned order, it would be clear that although the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC had afforded several opportunities to the appellant, but it is evident that on no occasion, reasonable opportunity to respond to the hearing notices was given. Thus, the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable time to represent the matter offending the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.