SUNIL KUMAR PATNALU,BERHAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, BERHAMPUR

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 177 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit, which is not found to be false. The reason given in the affidavit is in respect of medical problem. Consequently, the delay of 177 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is heard finally.

4. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the assessment was taken for scrutiny as there was large cash deposits during the demonetisation period and after verification it was found that there is a deposit of 2 Rs.4,05,000/- in the bank account of the assessee which the assessee has mentioned that the said amount was received from Shri Jagannath Mohapatra. However, the address and details of Shri Jagannath Mohapatra was not submitted by the assessee, which has resulted into the addition as made by the AO. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), also the details were not produced. It was the submission that the order of the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

I have considered the submissions of ld. Sr.DR. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that in para 8 of the order, the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that only a confirmation letter has been produced and no further details of Shri Jagannath Mohapatra was produced. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to prove the credit of Rs.4,05,000/-, issues in this appeal are restored to the file of AO for readjudication and examination. The assessee is directed to produce the details before the AO to prove the alleged loan taken from Shri Jagannath Mohapatra.