ANTHONY ROCKEY AVERA,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BKC

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3356/MUM/2026 (AY: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Anthony Rockey Avera Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 4/802, Amkrut Gagan Parsik Nagar vs Lakwa West Thane, Maharashtra – 400605. [PAN: AHGPA5250R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Jayesh Dadia, CA Revenue by Shri Ajit Kumar, Sr. DR (virtually) Date of hearing 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.08.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh dated 04.02.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 11,17,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The action in unjustified and unwarranted as the amount represents credit card payments. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering the submissions made during appellate proceedings juridically. The action in unjustified and unwarranted. 3. The Your petitioners crave leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw all or any of aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the assessing officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.

11,17,000/- under section 69A of the Income-tax Act on account of payment of source of cash payment of credit card bills (SBI credit card). The assessee could not make compliance before the lower authorities. The assessee has now filed an Application for Admission of Additional evidence in the form of an affidavit of Anthony Rocky Avera (assessee).The learned AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has set up a company namely ASA Technology with Vineet Raghavan, who had experience in educational tie-ups and students coordination for various practical training sessions. The company set up by assessee and Vineet Raghavan was new and did not meet certain criteria, thus for the purpose of international examination fees of students, which were payable in USD and could be paid by international credit cards only. The students approached him for payment of their examination fees through international credit cards. The assessee facilitated them in making payment of the examination fees through his credit cards. The assessee has furnished relevant evidence about payment of such fees of various students. Such evidence could not be furnished during assessee and is relevant and essential for complete adjudication of the issue. Therefore, the additional evidence may be admitted and, for verification of the facts, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the additional evidences are considered. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause as to why such evidence was not furnished before the lower authorities. The additional evidence may not be admitted and the additions made by the lower authorities may be confirmed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made an addition on account of unexplained expenditure incurred through SBI credit card and source of cash payment was not explained by assessee. The addition was made for want of sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate such expenditure. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Before us, the assessee has filed an affidavit of assessee in support of additional evidence, inter alia, contending that he had used his credit card for making payment of examination fees of various students. The assessee has also furnished the credit card statement for the entire financial year 2016-17, along with a summary of cash receipts and utilisation, as well as bank statements of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. We find that these evidences were not furnished before the lower authorities. In our considered view, the aforesaid evidences are essential for complete adjudication of the issue before us. Therefore, keeping in view the nature and relevance of the additional evidence the additional evidences are accepted / admitted and matter is restored back to the file of AO to reconsider the matter along with the evidences and for passing a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the AO shall provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to make any further default in making timely compliance before the lower authorities. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order was pronounced in open court on 17/08/2026 Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGRAWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated: 17/08/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai