MR. B. KUNHI AHMED,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, MANGALORE

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Panaji, and it relates to assessment year 2009-2010.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.5.50 lakh made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act.

We heard the parties and perused the record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has borrowed money from some of his relatives for making investments in the immovable properties. The assessee did not furnish any confirmation letter from any of the creditors and hence the A.O. assessed

In the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished confirmation letter obtained from the creditors. Hence, the learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. It was noticed that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.13.25 lakhs from Shri Nishar Ahmed in four instalments as detailed below:-

In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted first three transactions referred above. As regards the amount of Rs.5.50 lakhs received on 24.07.2008, the Assessing Officer observed that the same was remittance from a person named Shri Dean Mohiudeen. Since the above amount of Rs.5.50 lakh has not been received from the bank account of Shri Nishar Ahmed, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed to the extent of Rs.5.50 lakh and granted relief in respect of . Shri B.Kunhi Muhmed remaining additions. The assessee is aggrieved by the order so passed by Ld CIT(A).

Before us, the assessee has moved a petition seeking admission of an additional evidence, which is in the form of confirmation obtained from Shri Dean Mohiudeen, wherein he has has stated that he had given his name and address to the bank while transferring funds to the assessee and further confirmed that the above said amount of Rs.5.50 lakhs was given by Shri Nishar Ahmed only to the assessee. The learned AR prayed for the admission of the additional evidence by submitting that the confirmation letter given by Shri Dean Mohiudeen is a vital document in order to prove that the loan taken by the assessee from Shri Nishar Ahmed only.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer.

We find merit in the submission made by the learned DR. We noticed that the impugned addition of Rs.5.50 lakh has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) only on the ground that the same has not been received from Shri Nishar Ahmed but from Shri Dean Mohiudeen. The confirmation letter furnished by way of additional evidence, according to the assessee, clarifies the actual position. Since this additional evidence requires examination at the end of the Assessing Officer, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing