Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 and Rs.3,06,786 as unexplained cash credits. The assessee contended that adequate evidence, including bank statements, withdrawal details, reinvestment proof, and notarized affidavits for loans, was not considered by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee filed significant additional evidence not previously submitted to the AO or CIT(A). Deeming this evidence crucial to the root of the matter, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the additional evidence, directing the AO to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions for unexplained investment and cash credits, and if the additional evidence submitted by the assessee warrants a remand to the AO for re-verification.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax / ADDL / JCIT(A), Panchkula (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072443889 (1)
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69, despite the fact that the bank statements of Smt. Padmavathi Bellamkonda now establish a direct fund trail proving the source of investment. That the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that there was no link between the property sale proceeds and the investment, whereas the newly submitted evidence (bank statements, cash withdrawal details, and reinvestment proof) unequivocally demonstrates the flow of funds.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,06,786 as unexplained cash credits, without properly appreciating that the appellant has now submitted notarized affidavits as proof of unsecured loans received from Mr. Jillella Prasad and Mr. Pakalapati Peddiraju. That the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's explanation regarding small loans solely due to the non-availability of lenders' bank statements or ITRs, despite the small amounts involved and the difficulty in obtaining old financial records.
3. At the outset, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] filed a paper book and also various details relating to the addition made by the Ld. AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The paper book filed by the assessee consisting of 68 pages completely additional evidences which is neither filed before Ld. AO nor before Ld. CIT(A). Ld.AR prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted and prayed that this appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for proper appreciation of the facts.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”], however, objected for admission of additional evidences at this stage,
Page No. 2
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has filed before us additional evidence which is neither filed before the Ld. AO nor before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the opinion that these additional evidences filed by the assessee can be placed before Ld. AO. Since the additional evidences goes to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for proper verification of the same and we direct the Ld. AO to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO and direct the Ld. AO to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025.