INDRESH TYAGI,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), HAPUR

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the basis of AIR information received that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.21,03,662/- in his savings bank account in Syndicate Bank, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee and thereafter notice u/s.142 (1) was also issued. It was explained by the assessee that his land was acquired by HPDA and payment has been received through cheque which was deposited in Syndicate Bank. However, since the assessee could not furnish the documentary evidences regarding land acquired, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s.147/144, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.21,03,662/-. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has received compensation on account of acquisition of land. Although all those details were filed before the CIT(A), he rejected the same on the ground that these are all fresh evidences. He submitted that addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application under Rule 29 of Page | 2 the ITAT Rules for production of additional evidences which were not obtained at the time of assessment as well as at the time of hearing before the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has obtained the bank statements now under RTI which gives the details and, therefore, in the interest of justice these additional evidences should be admitted which go to the root of the matter and he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.21,03,662/- to the total income of the assessee on the ground that assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. Although the assessee explained that the amount was received on account of acquisition of land by HPDA, the Assessing Officer rejected the same in absence of any documentary evidence filed before him. I find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in view of the additional evidences filed which were obtained subsequent to the order of the CIT(A), he is in a position to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the Page | 3 interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. I hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised