NAGARAJAN ANBUVALLI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(1), COIMBATORE

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 438 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 438 days is condoned.

At the outset, it is noted that the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹5,37,77,130 by holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus with regard to providing credible reasons for such large cash deposits in the bank accounts. Therefore, it is clear that there was no material evidence in support of the claim of the assessee before the AO. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition to the extent of the transactions involved to and with Airtel Payments Bank Ltd., after verifying the cash transactions in the appellant's bank account limited to Airtel Payments Bank Ltd.

Ld. AR, Mr. K. Muthu Kumar, C.A., drew our attention to the paper books containing additional evidence in respect of the ITZ Cash Agreement, ITZ Cash Pooling Account Statement, Hermes ID and Sub- Agent Confirmation, Hermes Pooling Account Statement and rough copies of transactions maintained by the appellant at the time of business and submits that the said documentary evidence was not before the AO and the ld. CIT(A), which could not be furnished as it was running into several pages and volumes of paper books.

Ld. DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, did not dispute the same.

Having considered the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we find that, admittedly, the additional paper book consisting of the above-said documentary evidence from page Nos. 5 to 20, 21 to 42 and 43 to 376 relating to two parties was not available before the AO. We find that the assessee admittedly provided details with reference to Airtel Payments Bank Ltd., whereas he could not file the above-said documentary evidence before the AO and the ld. CIT(A).