HAJARA BASHEER,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), KOZHIKODE

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 01.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 3,04,864/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Kozhikode (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 03.12.2019 Hajara Basheer passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 23,00,192. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 19,95,326/- being the cash deposits made in the bank account during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who wide the impugned order dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) it is clear that the CIT(A) has refused to admit the additional evidence solely on the ground that in Form 35, the appellant stated that no additional evidence under rule 46 of the I.T. Rules is filed. In my considered opinion the approach adopted by the CIT(A) is hyper technical. When the appellant filed an application for admitting additional evidence in accordance with rule 46A, the CIT(A) should have disposed of the application in accordance with law. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal in accordance with law.