HOSAHALLI KRISHNAMURTHY RAO PAWAR DEEPAK PAWAR,DODDABALLAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(4), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 16/09/2015. His case has been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The

The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A). In the appeal grounds, the assessee had contended that the assessee had a proposal to start a petroleum dealership and for that purpose, he obtained loan from a company and after getting the loan through online, the said amount was deposited on term deposits with State Bank of India and obtained loan on the said term deposits and repaid the said loan obtained from M/s. Angel Investors. Therefore the assessee submitted that all the transactions are through online and banking channels. Therefore, it could not be termed as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted that the father of the assessee was seriously ill and therefore he has not attended the various notices issued by the AO. But unfortunately, the assessee had not submitted any documents in support of his contention and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had concluded that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of documents.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the defects pointed out by the Registry has been complied with and further submitted that in view of the continuous ill health of his father, the documents could not be produced before the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed an opportunity to submit the documents.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Insofar as the various defects pointed out by the Registry, the assessee had produced the details about the compliance and therefore the same has been accepted as due compliance and the appeal is taken up for hearing.

It is the case of the assessee that his father was seriously ill and therefore the assessee was prevented with sufficient cause for not filing the documents before the AO as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). From the statement of facts filed by the assessee, we came to know that the assessee had obtained loan to start a business and the said loan amount was deposited as term deposits in the State Bank of India and after obtaining the loan based on the term deposits, the assessee had repaid the loan obtained from M/s. Angel Investors. The submission of the assessee for not producing the documents before the AO as well as before the Ld.CIT(A) is that his father was not well and therefore he was very much busy in attending his father and all the transactions are properly recorded and therefore the addition u/s. 68 could not be made.

Considering the fact that the assessee had not submitted the details before the lower authorities for genuine reasons, we deem it fit to remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct the assessee to cooperate with the Ld.CIT(A) by producing the necessary documents at the time of hearing. We also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to grant a personal hearing before passing adverse orders.