Gyanwati vs ITO

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of ld. CIT (Appeals)-31, New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10.

Since the issues are common & connected and the appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed off by this common order.

The common issue raised by the assessee is treatment of cost of purchase of land and construction cost as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') amounting to Rs.8,62,310/-, Rs.15,36,024/-, Rs.12,65,900/- & Rs.91,50,300/- for the Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 respectively.

In this case, pursuant to AO’s order treating the amount spent in house construction from unexplained sources, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) scanned AO’s order and also scanned assessee’s submissions and reproduced the same in his order in a hardly legible manner. Thereafter, ld. CIT (A) passed a cryptic order holding that assessee could not prove the source of investment and he agreed with the findings of the AO.

Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

Upon careful consideration, we note that ld. CIT (A)’s order is a very cryptic order and also not easily legible. It is a settled law that even administrative orders have to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) is directed to pass a speaking order which should be legible also. Needless to add, assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.