SHRI RAMESH LALBEG SHARMA,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BHARUCH

PER AMARJIT SINGH (J.M): The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -VI, Baroda [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,50,500/- 1. being the deposits in assessee’s bank account. The CIT(A) grossly erred in not admitting the evidence produced 2. during the appellate proceedings and proceeding without taking into consideration this evidence which were important for the purpose of reaching a judicious conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the case. The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the total amount of cash credit 3. addition of Rs.13,50,000/-. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing.”

2 A.Y.2007-08 noticed that the CIT(A) has did not allow the additional evidence given in support of the claim of the assessee. However, no satisfactory reason has been given. It is not a good reason to decline the claim of the assessee to the fact that the assessee should adduce the evidence before the AO and adducing the evidence before the CIT(A) is contrary to the law. CIT(A) has co-terminus power to consider the claim of the assessee while the matter was pending before him. The additional evidence adducible by the assessee has certainly bearing on merits of the case, therefore, we admit the additional evidence and we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the issue before the CIT(A) to decide the matter of controversy afresh in the light of evidence adducible by assessee. Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard is liable to be given to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.