SAMPATH KUMAR JAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

Brief facts are that the AO in the assessment order disbelieved source of part sale consideration furnished by the assessee amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- as unexplained. Similarly, AO disbelieved loan received by the assessee from relatives amounting to Rs.10,55,000/-. Therefore, AO made addition of Rs.21,05,000/- u/s.69 of the Act.

Aggrieved, assessee challenged the assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act before the CIT(A). The assessee failed to make any representation before the CIT(A), despite providing various opportunities by the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) upheld order of the AO.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the assessee himself appeared and filed an affidavit dated 26.03.2025 explaining particulars of cheques and transactions documents which are relating to additions.

Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard rival submissions and perused records. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit dated 26.03.2025 as mentioned supra, and pleaded for one more opportunity to represent the matter before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this matter back to the file of the AO to verify documents/evidences as narrated in the affidavit. The ld. AO is directed to proceed as per law after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.