Anilraddi Karakalli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Assessee challenged the addition of ₹26,05,353 made u/s 69A , representing alleged unexplained cash deposits. The core issue in the appeal was the admission of additional evidence—documents that were not furnished during assessment or first appeal but were claimed to be critical for just adjudication.
Assessee, engaged in contract & wage work, deposited ₹26 lakh in cash but initially failed to file a return. Return was filed later u/s 148, declaring ₹3.61 lakh income u/s 44AD. AO treated the entire deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A due to lack of supporting documentation. CIT(A) also rejected Assessee’s claim owing to absence of corroborative evidence.
Assessee moved an application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, seeking admission of new documentary evidence such as bank statements, records of cash withdrawals, & wage payment registers. Tribunal found the explanation bonafide, noting that the documents were genuinely unavailable at earlier stages & essential to establish the nexus between business receipts & deposits. Stressing on natural justice & fair play, ITAT held that these evidences must be considered. Entire matter was restored to AO for fresh examination after considering the newly admitted documents.AO was instructed to provide proper opportunity to Assessee to explain the nature & source of deposits.
