9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the Appellant by the Assessing Officer by not deleting such additions to the total income. 4. Without prejudice The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli ought not to have sustained the additions made to the admitted income of the appellant. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is incorrect in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer in so for as ascertaining the investment towards the cost of construction based on the valuation officer report in excess by ₹ 68,114/- as undisclosed investment which suffers from the facts and figures. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli has erred in sustaining the order of The Assessing officer in so for as assessing the Agricultural income of ₹ 3,36,175/- of the appellant as income from other sources. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is incorrect in sustaining the additions of ₹ 44,380/- towards the additional personnel drawings by the assessing authority. 8. Without prejudice the commissioner of income tax (Appeals) Hubli, ought to have appreciated the evidences and documents supporting the Grounds of Appeal. 9. On the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in passing the order without providing proper opportunity to the Appellant and therefore, the Appellate order therefore is void ab initio. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, has erred in confirming the additions to the admitted income of the Appellant by the Assessing Officer by not deleting such additions to the total income. 4. Without prejudice The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli ought not to have sustained the additions made to the admitted income of the appellant. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is incorrect in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer in so for as ascertaining the investment towards the cost of construction based on the valuation officer report in excess by ₹ 12,36,990/- as undisclosed investment which suffers from the facts and figures. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli has erred in sustaining the order of The Assessing officer in so for as assessing the Agricultural income of ₹ 2,95,759/- of the appellant as income from other sources. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is incorrect in sustaining the additions of ₹ 15,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that ground No.2 regarding validity of reopening is not pressed in all these four years and accordingly ground No.2 is rejected as not pressed in all the four years. He also submitted that ground Nos.1, 3 and 4 are general for which no separate adjudication is called for. 5. Regarding ground No.5 in all these 4 years, it was submitted that the order of CIT(A) is very cryptic. He pointed out that on pages 7 to 10 of his order, the learned CIT(A) has noted the facts and decided the issue in a cryptic manner as per last para on page 10 of his order. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision by way of speaking and reasoned order. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce last para from the page 10 of the order of CIT(A). This reads as under: I have gone through the facts of the case, contents of the assessment order and written submissions of the assessee. The AO has referred to the valuation cell to know the exact value of the construction of the buildi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure details and agricultural income receipts. Absence of all these details the claim of agriculutral income ₹ 3,36,175/- is considered as income from other source. Hence the addition made by the AO is upheld and assesses this ground of appeal is dismissed. 9. From the above para reproduced from the 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 in all the four years. 10. Regarding ground No.7 in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
