Mr. M.Ramesh, Chikkaballapur V. Income-Tax Officer,Ward-1, Chikkaballapur

ITA 391/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5444 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAMEENAKSHI J
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANTH G S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Invalid notice; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 234B; 69; 148; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 389 TO 394 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 TO 2014 - 15 SHRI M. RAMESH, NO. 5, NARASIMHA PETE, CHINTAMANI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR 563 125. PAN: AGQPR1631L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, CHIKKABALLAPUR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRASHANTH .G.S, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 15 .0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 0 3 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE SIX APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHI CH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 6, BANGALORE DATED 1 2.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2014-15. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE H EARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 389/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,14,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 20,000/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.8,94,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (THE ACT) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 15 IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS MADE OUT OF THE PAST SAVIN GS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 8. 94,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE C1T(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115BBE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AN D THEREFORE THE LEVY OF TAX UNDER SECTION 115BBE AT THE RATE OF 30% ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED UN DER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 15 PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 10. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUN D THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAIN ING ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS. BUT FOR TH E SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REMAINING YE ARS ARE ALSO REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 15 GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA N O. 390/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,20,551/- ASAGAINST RS.20,550/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115BBE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AN D THEREFORE THE LEVY OF TAX UNDER SECTION 115BBE AT THE RATE OF 30% ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED UN DER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 15 7. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 9. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN L AW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUND THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 15 GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN ITA N O. 391/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,06,475/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,06,480/- RETURNE D BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115BBE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AN D THEREFORE THE LEVY OF TAX UNDER SECTION 115BBE AT THE RATE OF 30% ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED UN DER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 15 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 9. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN L AW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUND THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 15 GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA N O. 392/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,28,399/- AS AGAINST RS.4,28,400/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115BBE WAS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AN D THEREFORE THE LEVY OF TAX UNDER SECTION 115BBE AT THE RATE OF 30% ON UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED UN DER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 15 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 9. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN L AW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUND THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 15 GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA N O. 393/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.26,26,890/- AS AGAINST RS.3,81,860/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.18,45,035/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS MADE OUT OF THE PAST SAVIN GS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 18 ,45,035/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 15 BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 9. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN L AW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUND THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 15 MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. GROUNDS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IN ITA N O. 394/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENC E, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEL LANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 26,33,069/- AS AGAINST RS. 5,81,400/- RETURN ED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. A) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 16,51,666/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS MADE OUT OF THE PAST SAVIN GS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 16 ,51,666/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WI THOUT ANY COGENT JUSTIFICATION AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUIT Y AND JUSTICE. B) THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAILING T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IT IS OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW IS PREPOSTEROUS, UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE NEEDS TO BE DELETED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE COGNISANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE REPLIES FILED BY THE APPELLANT AN D THUS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NEED TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. A) THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD I N LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SU RVEY DESPITE NUMEROUS REQUESTS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H FROM THE ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 13 OF 15 APPELLANT DURING THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND THE TEST OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDE R OF REASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED UND ER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2 34A & 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE WAIVED OFF UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PURE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THE UNDER MENTIONED GR OUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT URGED SPECIFICALLY IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THESE GROUNDS DO NOT INV OLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS OTHERWISE ON THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE GROUNDS MAY KI NDLY BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND ON THE DECISION OF MYSORE HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GUNDATHURTHIMMAPPA& SONS VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 70 IT R 70. 9. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE BAD IN L AW AS THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH ON THE GROUND THAT: A) THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUE D UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM A MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IN AS MUCH AS THE WORDS ASSESS / REASSESS ARE NOT STRUCK OFF RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEING INVALID AND THUS THE ORDER PASSED ON SUCH AN INVALID NOTICE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS COUNT ALONE IN THE IN TEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. B) THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HAVING REC ORDED, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. C) THE SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF TH E ACT HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT OR HAVING BEEN OBTAINE D, THE COPY OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 14 OF 15 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT PROPER REPRESENTATION COULD NOT BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE AO AND CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE MATTE R IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION, THE ASSESSEE WILL MAKE PROPER C OMPLIANCE. IN THIS REGARD, HE POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA NO. 15 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NO DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT HE DERIV ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO PROOF OF LAND HOLDINGS OR RTCS WERE FURNISHED AN D NO BILLS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR BILLS FOR EXPENSES ON PURC HASE OF AGRICULTURAL SEEDS, MANURES, FERTILIZERS ETC HAVE BEEN FILED AND THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR LABOUR PAYMENTS ETC. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THIS PARA OF ORDER OF CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS BASIS THAT PROPER EVIDENCE W AS NOT PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE AO OR CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE ALL TH E REQUIRED EVIDENCES. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN SPITE OF NUMEROUS NOTICES ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME JUST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS GETTING TIME BARRED AND THEREFORE, NO TIME WAS AVAI LABLE TO MAKE ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. HENC E, I FIND THAT ONLY BECAUSE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED LATE BY THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO WITHOUT MAKING QUERIES FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO TIME AVAILABLE. HENCE I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQUIR IES AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY BRING ON RECOR D IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FO R FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ITA NOS. 389 TO 394/BANG/2018 PAGE 15 OF 15 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO DECISION IS CALLED FOR NOW REGARDING MERIT OF TH E CASE. 6. REGARDING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN RESPECT OF VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE. HENCE I INFER THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST ASSESSEE ON THIS BASI S THAT IT IS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH MARCH, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.