Rajesh Kumar Dalmia Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
In the abovementioned matter ITAT remanded the matter to AO after observing that assessee failed to apply under rule 46 A (Additional Evidence) of the IT Rules.
Assessee filed his return at ₹6,08,660/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny under “CASS” with thereason – “Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period. AO found that assessee had deposited specified Bank Notes (SBNs) to the tune of Rs 6,50,000/- during the period of demonetization which was treated as unexplained cash credits u/s Rs. 6.50,000/-. On appeal Addl/JCIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Before ITAT it was submitted that he engaged in getting loans from financial institutions for his clients and agents and the amounts received were not unsecured loans but advances from clients for purchase of stamp papers etc. List of 31 persons with their PANs and Mobile Nos, were already submitted before appellate authority. It was contended that both section 269SS and 269T could not be invoked but this issue was not adjudicated because the same was not the subject matter of appeal. Assessee made prayer to remand back the matter as in lack of proper opportunity. On the other hand, revenue relied upon the order of appellate authority.
