ABDULRAHIMAN ABDULKADAR,PALAKKAD vs. ITO,WARD-5, PALAKKAD

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of travel agency. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 04.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,03,170/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5. Palakkad (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 04.10.2018 passed Abdulrahiman Abdulkadar u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs.7,11,170/-. While doing the so, the AO made addition of Rs. 3,98,000/0 u/s. 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money.

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

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

At the outset I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed in support of the source of cash deposit by holding that the appellant had not filed any application under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. However, it is brought to my notice that during the course of proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the appellant had filed an application under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, which is placed on page 9 of the paper book. The learned CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence, ignoring the application for admitting the additional evidence. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. All the contentions raised by the appellant are kept opened before CIT(A).