LOTUS FARMS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN KAssessment Year: 2019-20
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.
CIT(A)–11, Bengaluru vide order dated 29/01/2025 in DIN No.
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1072665987(1) for the assessment year 2019-
20. 2. At the outset, we note that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO for want of documentary evidences. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) stands as under:
Page 2 of 4
.
“7.4
Further on perusal of the details of the deleted entries, it is seen that the underlying documentary evidence in the form of vouchers where the mistake occurred and how it was rectified was not produced during the appellate proceedings even while producing the additional evidence. Just giving the details with a narration of what went wrong and how they are corrected is not sufficient. The appellant has to produce those vouchers where there was mistake and how the same was corrected and the entries that were passed in the New Gen ware after obtaining prior approval of Sri Srihari Reddy. The appellant has not discharged is burden of proof but simply stated that the wrongly punched entries were corrected and there was no undisclosed cash sale.”
However, at the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that none of the authorities below has asked for the submission of the supporting documents for the rectification of the entries made in the books of accounts. As per the ld. AR, the assessee was required to explain the deleted entries which were duly explained. Indeed the assessee did not file any corroborative material for such deleted entries. However, the ld. AR before us filed the additional documents running from pages 1 to 1869 corresponding to the deleted entries with the supporting rectified materials which requires to be verified at the level of the AO. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before us to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding Page 3 of 4
.
discussion, we note that the assessee has not furnished supporting materials for making the rectified entries in the books of accounts and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. However, we find that such details i.e. supporting materials were never either asked by the ld. CIT(A) not the AO from the assessee and, therefore, non- furnishing of the requisite information cannot be attributed to the assessee. Thus, from the preceding discussion, we note that there was sufficient cause for not furnishing the supporting materials by the assessee. Therefore, we exercise our power granted under Rule 28 of Income tax Appellate Rules and accordingly, admit the additional documents filed by the assessee. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to his case before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the fining of the ld.
CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of additional documents filed by the assessee and as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 4th day of November, 2025 (SOUNDARA RAJAN K)
Accountant Member
Bangalore
Dated, 4th November, 2025
/ vms /
Page 4 of 4
.
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file
By order
Asst.