BODDAPALLI HEMA SUNDARA RAO,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065214134(1) dated 29.05.2024 for the I.T.A.No.277/VIZ/2024 Boddapalli Hema Sundara Rao A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 05.12.2018.

Brief facts of the case are assessee being an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 admitting a total income of Rs.2,56,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examining the following points:- a. Cash deposits and transactions in property. b. Capital Gain and sale of property.

During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee furnished the copy of purchase document of the property sold by him and two work agreements from contractors. However, assessee has not furnished the capital gain computation and details of bank account wherein large cash deposits have been made and supporting documentary evidences. After verification of the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] made an addition of Rs. 4,47,160/- towards Long Term Capital Gains and Rs.28,52,835/- as unexplained cash credits in bank account taxable under section 68 of the Act.

Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”

Additionally, assessee also filed a petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules (in short “ITAT Rules”) for production of additional evidences.

Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] of the assessee submitted that cash deposits in the Yes Bank arise out of withdrawals made from ICICI Bank account. He submitted that the relevant bank accounts are attached as additional evidences before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Further, he also submitted that the assessee purchased the property in Semi-constructed state and accordingly incurred certain expenditure to complete the construction which was claimed as cost of acquisition. He therefore pleaded that these additional evidences may be accepted by the Tribunal and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for examination and deciding the case on merits.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record including the petition filed by the assessee Under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. Admittedly, we find from the order of the Ld. AO that assessee has not furnished the bank statements before the Ld. AO for verification and also the computationof capital gains for the property sold by the assessee. The assessee before us has filed the bank statements and the documents while praying for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. We therefore in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee by following the principles of natural justice, considered it deem fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudicating the case on merits based on the additional evidences produced by the assessee. Needless to say, that the assessee should cooperate with the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are disposed off statistically.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.