Pratik Yogesh Jaiswal Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, delivered an order in the case of Pratik Yogesh Jaiswal Vs ITO for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. The appeal concerned two major additions totaling over ₹16.34 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The first addition amounted to ₹12,71,730, categorized as ‘unexplained investment’, and the second was ₹3,63,000 for the ‘disallowance of expenses’. Both additions were made due to the assessee’s failure to provide documentary evidence to the AO during the assessment proceedings, such as supporting bills, vouchers, and bank statements proving payments.
The assessee challenged these additions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, the assessee consistently failed to comply with the opportunities provided or submit the required documents at the first appellate stage. Consequently, the CIT(A) was compelled to dismiss the appeal and affirm the additions made by the AO, noting the absence of evidence to substantiate the assessee’s claims.
When the case reached the ITAT, the assessee finally presented new documentary evidence, which included a purchase deed, a sale deed, bank statements, and the Income Tax Return (ITR) and financial statement of a related party (Mr. Yogesh Jaiswal). The ITAT noted that the AO, in the original assessment order, had explicitly recorded that no documentary evidence had been furnished until that point.
