Janaki Ram Babji Rao Annam Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that CIT(A) didn’t admit the additional evidence produced by the assessee by simply holding that no request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A was filed. Hence, matter remanded back to CIT(A) with direction to admit additional evidence.
Facts- The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine the sources for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. On verification of the bank account copies and the other material available before him, AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 24,31,000/- by way of Specified Bank Notes [“SBNs”].
During the assessment proceedings, in the absence of any explanation from the assessee with respect to the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 24,31,000/-deposited in his bank accounts during demonetization period as income of the assessee from unexplained sources as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal and uphold the additions. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that on appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee made various submissions and documentary evidences to substantiate his claim that the sources for cash deposits are nothing but collection from debtors and cash available on hand at the time of demonetization. However, on perusal of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC’s order, we find that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC did not admit the additional evidence produced by the assessee by simply holding that no request for admission of additional evidence under Rule-46A was filed by the assessee neither in Form-35 at para 12 nor by adducing separate application under Rule-46A of the IT Rules, 1962. In this situation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the nature of the issues involved in the appeal, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have admitted the written submissions and documentary evidence in the form of additional evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim and decide the case on merits. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. Accordingly, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a direction to admit the additional evidence produced before the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC U/s. 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 and decide the case in accordance with law and on merits.
