Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unsecured loans and advances, totaling ₹3,02,65,000, as the assessee could not furnish sources.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had remanded one addition, but dismissed another addition of ₹2,19,65,000 for creditors, observing that the documents were already discussed. However, the AO concluded the assessment before the assessee could furnish full details.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering additional evidence, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish details before the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2016-17 Raman Mayavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Rangar Sannathi Street, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Erode. [PAN:ABBPM8802G] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. E. pavuna Sundari, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the additional evidences filed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.3,13,89,700/-, inter alia, making addition under section 68 of the Act of ₹.3,02,65,000/- on the ground that the assessee could not furnish source for the unsecured loan of ₹.83,00,000/- and advanced received of ₹.2,19,65,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate drew our attention to para 16 of the impugned order and contended that the assessee, in respect of the addition of ₹.2,19,65,000/- towards creditors, argued that necessary details were filed on 15.12.2018 in response to the SCN, with a request for two days to furnish remaining confirmation, but, however, the assessment was concluded on 19.12.2018 before the assessee could submit them and filed the same before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission, which was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to furnish the confirmations before the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT objected the submissions of the ld. AR and submits that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the assessee to furnish the details.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that with regard to the addition of ₹.83,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to delete the addition subject to verification of the books of account of the assessee, vide para 15.6 of the impugned order.
In respect of the addition of ₹.2,19,65,000/- towards creditors, the assessee argued before the ld. CIT(A) that necessary details were filed on 15.12.2018 in response to the SCN, with a request for two days to furnish remaining confirmation, but, however, the assessment was concluded on 19.12.2018 before the assessee could submit them and filed the same before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission, but, however, vide para 16.1 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the documents filed has already been discussed during the course of assessment proceedings in detail and nothing substantial has been brought on record at this appellate stage. We note that in page 4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer held that the sources remain unexplained towards the advances received at ₹.2,19,65,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer had no details as on the date of completion of assessment on 19.12.2018 since the assessee sought for two days time for furnishing the confirmations, which was not acceded to. Before us, by filing various details/confirmations from pages 13 to 37 of the appeal memo, the ld. AR prayed to afford one more opportunity to furnish the same before the Assessing Officer. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish the details before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01st December, 2025 at Chennai.