IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 395/Bang/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 Shri Rangappa Krishnamurthy, No. 11, Sri Ranga, TPK I Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Vs. Ward 1, Raghavendranagar, Tumkur. Tumkur 572 102. PAN AYGPK3167Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Sreehari Kutsa, CA Revenue by Smt. Kabila .H, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by assessee which is directed against order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated 24.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. grounds raised by assessee are as under. 1. Order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), passed under section 250 of Act in so far as it is against Appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and facts and circumstances in Appellant's case. 2. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing appeal without affording adequate opportunity of hearing on facts and circumstances of case. 3. Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed to tax on total income of Rs.68,56,400/- as determined by learned AO and confirmed by learned CIT(A) as against total income of Rs. 3,56,400/- as declared by Appellant on facts and circumstances of case. ITA No. 395/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 3 4. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that addition of Rs.50,00,000/- under section 69 of Act on account of cash deposits is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of case. 5. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that cash deposits had no character of income and thus erred in upholding addition on facts and circumstances of case. 6. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that addition of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of income from non-agricultural activities is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of case. 7. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that income from agriculture is exempt and question of making it taxable for reasons given by him is not in accordance with law on facts and circumstances of case. 8. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that Appellant carries on organic farming and question of incurring expenses of nature specified by horticulture department does not arise on facts and circumstances of case. 9. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no income derived by Appellant from dairy farming on facts and circumstances of case. 10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of grounds urged above. 11. In view of above and other grounds that may be urged at time of hearing of appeal, Appellant prays that appeal may be allowed in interest of justice and equity. 3. At very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that sufficient opportunities of hearing was not provided by ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that appeal was first fixed for hearing on 15.11.2018 as noted by ld. CIT(A) in para 2 of his order and on this date, request was made for adjournment by ld. AR of assessee. second date of hearing was fixed on 12.12.2018. On this date, although none could appear before ld. CIT(A) and no written submission was filed and no request for adjournment was made, but still in interest of justice, some more opportunities should have been provided by ld. CIT(A). Learned DR of revenue supported order of CIT (A). 4. We have considered rival submissions and we find force in submissions of learned AR of assessee that sufficient opportunity of ITA No. 395/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 3 hearing was not provided by ld. CIT(A). Hence, we set aside impugned order of ld. CIT(A) and restore matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at present stage. 5. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 23rd August, 2019. Copy to 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Rangappa Krishnamurthy v. Income-tax Officer, Ward1, Tumkur