Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai restored the matter back to the file of AO since CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence which was sought by AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication.
Facts- The assessee is an individual. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2)of the Act was issued on 21.09.2018. The assessee was directed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.88,50,000/- made during the demonetization period. In response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee filed a letter stating that cash deposits are out of cancellation of a sale agreement (mutually cancelled) and advance received from the assessee was refunded partly by cash and partly by bank transfers. However not being satisfied, AO treated the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.88,50,000/- as unexplained and made addition u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
CIT(A) didn’t admit the additional evidence and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the addition made by the AO u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that CIT(A) has also not taken into consideration, the additional evidence which is the very same information that was sought by the AO by issuance of notice u/s.133(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the confirmation given by the intended sellers of the property needs examination. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
