SHRI VINODKUMAR PREMJIBHAI SAMANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SK RANGE, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 20th February, 2017, for the assessment year 2013-14, on the following grounds:-

When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee fairly pointed out that he was not in a position to submit any supporting evidence in connection with the unexplained credits to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. He submits that as for the remaining disputed unexplained credits, he had furnished the requisite details before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) was pleased to delete the additions in respect of the said amounts. Learned counsel has now submitted the supporting evidences, by way of additional evidences before me under rule 29, and prayed that the matter may kindly be remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in the light of these additional evidences. 3. Learned Departmental Representative opposes the prayer. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record – including affidavits of Shri Kiran Kumar Patel and Naresh Kumar Patel, I deem it fit and proper to admit the additional evidences, as the assessee was indeed prevented from producing the same earlier, by reasonable cause, and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ordered accordingly. As the matter has been remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, I see no need to deal with the matter on merits.