TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this delay and admit these appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: ITA No.1223/Bang/2014 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli has erred in confirming the order of Assessing officer in reopening the assessment of the Appellant without any basis and reason. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is has erred 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 Rs. 68,114/- as undisclosed investment which suffers from the facts and figures. 6. The Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds of Appeal. 9. On the facts the additions to the admitted income as sustained by The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, are excessive, arbitrary and un reasonable which ought to be reduced in total ITA No.1225/Bang/2014 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli has erred in confirming the order of Assessing officer in reopening the assessment of the Appellant without any basis and reason. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli is has erred 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 valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejudice the commissioner of income tax (Appeals) Hubli, ought to have appreciated the evidences and documents supporting the Grounds of Appeal. 9. On the facts the additions to the admitted income as sustained by The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, are excessive, arbitrary and un reasonable which ought to be reduced in total 4. In the course of hearing, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led any evidence regarding the agriculture income other than mentioning the possession of the agriculture land. Mere possession of agriculture land is not enough there must be evidence for agricultural income with supporting evidence of the crops grown, agricultural expenditure, use of manures and fertilizers, agricultural labour expenditure details and agricultural income receipts. Absence of all these details the claim of agriculutral income Rs. 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 orde....