SRINIVASAN THIRUMALAI KUMAR,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO WARD 1 TIRUVARUR, TIRUVARUR

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of ‘ATM Depositor’ and has filed his return of income for AY 2024- 25, declaring total income of Rs.4,25,370/- under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD of the Act and claimed refund of Rs.26,120/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify the high value cash withdrawals; accordingly statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee has partly submitted the reply for verification. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee and documents available with the department, the AO found that gross turnover of Rs.30,35,091/- disclosed in ITR vis a vis Rs.21,91,650/- as per 26AS and the assessee failed to furnish the supporting documents for excess turnover to the tune of Rs.8,43,441/-. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 28.11.2025 by making an addition of Rs.8,43,441/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 06.07.2026.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal due to the assessee has not demonstrated that the additional evidence could not have been produced before the AO despite due diligence. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) was not admitted with the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and passed an order dated 06.07.2026 by confirming the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) erred in mechanically rejecting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A without recording any specific finding on the relevance, genuineness or evidentiary value of the reconciliation documents, and without appreciating that the said material went to the very root

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the AO and the ld.CIT(A) have provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the department and partially reply submitted by the assessee and on appeal the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.