VENKOBA MAHESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-9(2), CHENNAI

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and furnish various details including fresh evidence. In order to satisfy the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, the ld. CIT(A) sought for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, vide

On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, submits that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously sustained the addition being the value of credit card payments made during the assessment year under consideration. He drew our attention to page 3 to 6 of the impugned order and vehemently argued that despite relevant submissions of the assessee were reproduced in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the explanations offered by the assessee. Further, he drew our attention to para 4.3 of the impugned order, wherein, the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer is reproduced, but, however, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the remand report and simply confirmed the addition and prayed that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee explained the source for ₹.5,14,305/- out of ₹.27,61,920/- towards credit card payment and thereby, the Assessing Officer treated the balance amount of ₹.22,47,615/- as income from unexplained sources under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. We note that before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has submitted detailed written submissions along with fresh evidences which is reflected at 3 to 6 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) also obtained remand report from the Assessing Officer and reproduced the same at para 4.3 of the impugned order. The ld. CIT(A) called for rejoinder from the assessee to the remand report of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessee made submission, which is reproduced at para 4.3.1 of the impugned order. Further, we note that without considering the submissions of the assessee and other details such as bank statement, jewel loan statement, etc. furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, is not justified. Under the above facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and pass order in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish complete 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 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 20th March, 2025 at Chennai.