KAMAL KISHORE LAKHENA,BARWANI vs. ITO, SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Kolkata [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned ITO, Sendhwa [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

Heard the learned Representative of both sides and case record carefully perused.

The dispute in present case relates to the addition of Rs. 10,38,000/- made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) u/s 69A of the Act treating the cash deposit made by assessee in a/c with State Bank of India on 03.12.2016 during demonetization period as unexplained money. The assessee was a Govt. employee who retired from service on 31.10.2015. During scrutiny proceeding, when the AO show-caused assessee to explain the source of impugned deposit, it was submitted by assessee that he received funds on retirement and by utilizing the funds so received, purchased a land from his brother Shri Vimal Kumar. Subsequently, the deal of purchase was cancelled and the assessee received refund of Rs. 10,21,000/- on 01.12.2016 from his brother which was thereafter utilized for making impugned deposit of Rs. 10,38,000/- in bank a/c. The AO has, however,

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the copy of purchase-agreement is available at Page No. 35-36 of Paper-Book. On a query by bench as to whether this purchase-agreement was filed to AO, Ld. AR initially referred the letter dated 14.11.2019 filed by assessee to AO during scrutiny- proceeding, copy at Page No. 14-17 of Paper-Book, in an attempt to show that the assessee narrated the details of purchase of land, cancellation of deal and refund of money by brother. But from this submission, shown by Ld. AR, it is not spelled out that the purchase-agreement was filed to AO.

Replying to above, Ld. DR for revenue submitted that in such a situation when the vital documents (Purchase-agreement and Affidavit of brother as discussed earlier) were not submitted before AO and further no submission was even made before CIT(A), the evidences submitted by assessee are in the nature of ‘new/additional evidences’ and therefore the only possible remedy could be to remand this case back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after examining evidences.

Ld. AR agreed to the proposal made by Ld. DR.

In view of above discussion and the consensus arrived at by learned Representatives of both sides, we are inclined to remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is directed to make a complete submission before AO with supporting evidences. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.