MALKESHKUMAR ARVINDKUMAR SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income for the AY 2022-23 on 12.08.2022 declaring total income of Rs.44,96,690/-. The assessee had for AY 2023-24. The source of fund in the hands of Shri Arvind Shah was receipt of money from Aadeshwar finance. The AO did not accept reply of the assessee and added Rs.16,62,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed reply which is reproduced by the CIT(A) at para 5 of the appellate order. He observed that the assessee has not given details regarding the availability of sufficient fund with the loan creditor at the time of advancing loan to the assessee. Further, the lender, Shri Arvind Shah had not filed returns of income for a prolonged period and the bank statement reflect that loan to the assessee was given out of a one-time credit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book giving various details, which had been submitted to the lower authorities. These include PAN and Aadhar Card of Shri Arvind Shah, copy of ledger confirmation of Adeshwar Finance to Shri Arvind Shah, ITR of Arvind Shah for AY 2011-12 and 2023-24 etc. The assessee has also filed copy of bank passbook of Shri Arvindkumar Shah in Bank of Baroda, Nadiad 2 Branch from 01.04.2011 to 31.01.2026. He submitted that the copy of the passbook is being filed by way of additional evidence. He submitted that the said evidence could not be produced before the AO or CIT(A) since in spite of best efforts. Bank of Baroda, Nadiad Branch was not giving the statements of Arvind Shah as they were very old and were from the year 2011 onwards and the account was more or less Dormant. After lot of efforts and meeting with the senior officers, the bank finally gave the statements on 15.04.2026. In view of the above, the bank statements could not be produced before the AO as well as CIT(A). The evidence is material to the issue under consideration and is necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal. He requested to admit the additional evidence and set aside the matter to lower authorities for examination and fresh decision. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of lower authorities. Regarding the admission of the additional evidence, the ld. DR submitted that the Bench may decide the matter as it thinks fit. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Let us first discuss as to whether the additional evidence could be admitted by the Tribunal, which were not submitted before the lower authorities. The ld. AR submitted that Bank of Baroda was not giving the statement because it was very old and was from year 2011 onwards. Hence, the same could not be submitted to the AO/CIT(A). However, after meeting senior officials of the bank, the statement was given on 15.04.2026. The additional evidence is relevant to decide the case. Rule 29 permits ITAT to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. The intention behind the rule is that substantial justice should be done and the interest of justice should be the overriding consideration. Considering the facts and the above discussion, the additional evidence is admitted. 7.1 We find that the assessee has furnished PAN and Aadhar of Shri Arvind Shah, the loan creditor, bank statement of Shri Arvind Shah, ledger confirmation of Shri Arvind Shah and copy of ITR of Shri Arvind Shah. Now, he has submitted the bank passbook for the relevant period as additional evidence. The additional evidence is necessary for proper appreciation of the impugned issue. The said evidence was not before the lower authorities. Therefore, without delving further into the matter, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO shall consider the submissions including the additional evidence and decide the issue in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.