SEBASTIN KINGSLIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(3)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2012-13 arising from the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of newspaper and magazine retailing. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,95,461/-.

During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the assessee furnished explanation and supporting details in respect of the additions made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, in the remand report, accepted that substantial cash deposits represented business turnover, inter-bank transfers and loans received from father. However, the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order sustained addition of Rs.32,99,781/- observing that the assessee had failed to produce books of account, cash book and supporting evidences before him.

In respect of addition relating to time deposits of Rs.62,73,000/-, the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Urban Co- operative Bank account did not belong to him. It was further submitted that even in the remand report, the Assessing Officer had observed that the bank details available on record were incomplete and necessary verification could not be completed. However, the Ld.

At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that once the Ld. CIT(A) had called for remand report and the Assessing Officer had examined the evidences furnished by the assessee, the appellate authority was required to adjudicate the appeal after considering such remand findings. It was submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the remand report and therefore the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the explanation and documents furnished by the assessee and accepted the source of substantial cash deposits as arising from business turnover, inter-bank transfers and loan received from father. Further, with regard to the addition relating to time deposits, the Assessing Officer in the remand report observed that the bank details available on record were incomplete and proper verification could not be carried out.

However, while passing the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions without discussing or adjudicating upon the findings recorded in the remand report. Once a remand report was called for and furnished by the Assessing Officer, the same formed part of the appellate record and required due consideration before

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after duly considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all relevant evidences and extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings.

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