AZMIRA BHADIYA, KHAMMAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM, KOTHAGUDEM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.09/Hyd/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Ajmira Bhadiya, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanaka Durga Wines, Ward-1, 15-227, Sudimalla, Kothagudem. Khammam District. PAN: ATTPA 6685 R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri S. Rama Rao For Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR Date of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKARA REDDY, AM.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad dated 23.10.2015 for the A.Y. 2011-2012 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The assessee filed a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, Shri S. Rama Rao, submitted that the assessee had pooled up the impugned amount from four various persons known to him. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not get letters of confirmation from the said persons, as there was no business connection due to expiry of Excise Licence and also they were not readily available. He submitted that after a great effort, the assessee could locate the persons and obtained confirmation letters alongwith supporting evidences, which prove the source of

payment of Excise Licence fees. The evidences were placed at page 1 to 51 of the paper book. He prayed that in the interest of justice, these additional evidences should be admitted, as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing them before the Revenue Authorities. 3. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee and submitted that the assessee has changed the versions and under those circumstances, no fresh opportunity should be granted to him by way of admission of additional evidences. 4. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the papers on record and orders of the authorities below, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the additional evidence before the lower authorities. Thus, I admit these additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 as in my view they go to the root of the matter and are necessary for fair adjudication of the matter. 5. I set aside this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidences and re-adjudicate the matter de novo in accordance with law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced the in open Court on 08th May, 2018. Sd/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 08th May, 2018.

OKK, Sr.PS

Copy to