Balasaheb Kashinath Kamble, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 1792/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9363 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 22

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM AND SHRI RIPOTE DIPAK PANDURANG, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1792/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balasaheb Kashinath Kamble, Sr.No.24/1B, Flat No.04, Aksha Apartment, Pimple Nilakh, Pune- 411027. PAN : AQZPK0209N .......अपीलाथᱮ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. DCIT, Circle- 8, Pune. ......ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhay Shastri Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 31.01.2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 6, Pune dated 10.09.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the following grounds of appeal on record :- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in adding back Agricultural Income without giving a speaking order. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Assessee along with his wife and brothers holds 22 Acres of land yielding Agricultural Income from the same which was accounted for in the said A.Y. 2015-16. 3. The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has added back item treating them as unexplained Cash Deposits and not Agricultural Income. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the various documents produced such as 7/12 extract to determine the Agricultural Income.” 2 ITA No.1792/PUN/2018 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of transportation providing hired vehicles to various companies. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 23.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.34,68,824/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.12.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.75,79,500/- after making addition of Rs.41,10,673/- on account of agricultural income as the assessee had failed to submit the details of agricultural income. 3. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order sustained the action of the Assessing Officer for want of proper evidence in support of agricultural income, which could not be produced by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee along with his wife and brothers holds 22 Acres of land yielding agricultural income from the same which was accounted for in the year under consideration. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has added back item treating them as unexplained cash deposits and not agricultural income. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the various documents produced such as 7/12 extract to determine the agricultural income. 6. On the other hand. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3 ITA No.1792/PUN/2018 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties in this case and the facts and circumstances involved in this appeal. We find that at the very outset, the assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. That therein at para 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee but there were no submissions or response from the assessee. The Assessing Officer went on to hold that the assessee has willfully not complied with the statutory notice issued u/s 142(1) for which penalty u/s 271(1)(b) was also levied on the assessee. However, at the time of hearing before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR on record that at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessee had met with a serious accident for which he could not respond to the statutory notice before the Assessing Officer nor could file required documents/evidences in support of his case. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is now ready with necessary documents and is willing to represent his case on merits and prayed that if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer then he can produce necessary evidences and would represent his case on merits. The ld. DR fairly conceded to the submissions of the assessee. In the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that since the ld. AR has made a statement at bar that the assessee had met with an accident for which there was non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and now they are ready with necessary evidences, therefore, we set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication afresh while complying with the principles of natural justice and at the same time, we direct the assessee to file all relevant details/evidences before the Assessing Officer in 4 ITA No.1792/PUN/2018 support of his case and represent his case on merits. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 02 nd day of February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RIPOTE DIPAK PANDURANG) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 02 nd February, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-6, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.