SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3), KOLHAPUR

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.16,01,663/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A).

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer got information about the assessee having deposited cash of Rs.10 lakhs or more in his savings bank account. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as ‘the Act’) was issued. The assessee did not respond to the same and Shankar Nagappa Jadagouda other notices issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time. Eventually, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act making addition of Rs.38,27,878/- u/s 69A of the Act representing cash deposits in the bank. The ld. CIT(A) partly accepted the contention of the assessee and reduced the addition to Rs.16,01,663/-. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee has placed on record certain additional evidence: Invoices of certain parties, Ledger confirmation of M/s Gaurav Traders and certain other documents to fortify his claim. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that these documents go to establish the case of the assessee. He submitted that some of the documents were received after passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A) and other documents, although in existence at the time of assessment proceedings, could not be produced for one reason or the other. Taking into consideration of the entire conspectus of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it would in the interest of justice if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. I order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity Shankar Nagappa Jadagouda of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to file any further fresh evidence as he considers expedient to justify his case.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th November, 2020. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 19th November, 2020 सुजीत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Kolhapur िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 19-11-2020 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 19-11-2020 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed - JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved - JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *