Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 987 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investment - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the order of the AO in so for as ascertaining the investment towards the cost of construction based on the valuation officer report in excess - HELD THAT - We find force in the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee because we find although various contentions were raised before CIT(A) as noted by him on pages 7 to 10 of his order, he has decided the issue in a very cryptic manner as per last para on page 10 of his order as reproduced above. Hence, we feel it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. We order accordingly. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and we make no comment on merit. Ground No.5 is allowed for statistical purposes in all the four years. Disallowance of agricultural income - HELD THAT - Order of CIT(A), it is seen that the order is very cryptic particularly in view of this fact that on page No.13 of his order, it is noted by learned CIT(A) that the assessee has filed written submissions where it is mentioned that the AO has accepted the income of the assessee for the financial years 2001-02 to 2003-04 but erred in rejecting the agricultural income for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. Hence, we feel it proper to restore back this matter also to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision by way of speaking and reasoned order. We order accordingly. On this issue also, we set aside the order of CIT(A) in all these four years for a fresh decision on all aspects after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. Accordingly, ground No.6 is also allowed for statistical purposes Addition for household expenses - contention raised by the assessee in the written submissions that the AO has not considered the income of the other family members of the assessee including the income of the assessee s husband who is pensioner from Govt. of Karnataka who is a former MLA and advocate by profession - HELD THAT - When the drawing is considered for the family as a whole because the assessee and her husband are living jointly, the income of the assessee as well as her husband s income should be considered to decide as to whether drawing shown by the assessee is inadequate or not. It is observed by learned CIT(A) on page 16 of his order that no income details of the assessee s husband were furnished before CIT(A) or before the AO. We feel that when the matter is going back to CIT(A) for a fresh decision on two other aspects, on this aspect also, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue also and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision - Ground No.7 is also allowed for statistical purposes
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals. 2. Validity of reopening the assessment. 3. Opportunity to the appellant. 4. Additions to admitted income. 5. Investment towards the cost of construction. 6. Agricultural income assessed as income from other sources. 7. Additional personal drawings. 8. Appreciation of evidence and documents. 9. Excessiveness of additions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Appeals: The appeals were filed by the assessee after a delay of 126 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation of delay citing old age and health problems. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals in the interest of justice. 2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment: The assessee did not press the ground regarding the validity of reopening the assessment. Hence, this ground was rejected as not pressed in all four years. 3. Opportunity to the Appellant: The assessee argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Hubli, passed the order without providing a proper opportunity to the appellant. This ground was not separately adjudicated as it was considered general. 4. Additions to Admitted Income: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions to the admitted income by the Assessing Officer (AO). This ground was also considered general and not separately adjudicated. 5. Investment Towards the Cost of Construction: The assessee challenged the addition made by the AO based on the valuation officer's report, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be very cryptic and decided to set aside the order. The matter was restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides. 6. Agricultural Income Assessed as Income from Other Sources: The assessee claimed agricultural income, which was assessed as income from other sources by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld this assessment. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be very cryptic and restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides. 7. Additional Personal Drawings: The AO added amounts towards additional personal drawings, considering the annual drawing of the assessee at ?60,000 per year. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not furnish income details of her husband. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to furnish evidence regarding her husband's income and considering this aspect in the decision. 8. Appreciation of Evidence and Documents: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not appreciate the evidence and documents supporting the grounds of appeal. This ground was considered general and not separately adjudicated. 9. Excessiveness of Additions: The assessee contended that the additions to the admitted income were excessive, arbitrary, and unreasonable. This ground was also considered general and not separately adjudicated. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) on the grounds related to the cost of construction, agricultural income, and additional personal drawings. The matters were restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decisions by way of speaking and reasoned orders after providing reasonable opportunities to both sides. All four appeals of the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|