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 - ITAT BANGALOREUndisclosed 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
|