SYED IZAZUL HAQUE,GUWAHATI` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), GUWAHATI

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of Learned CIT (A), upholding the order of Learned AO, wherein the addition of ₹1,45,58,220 was made by the Learned AO by rejecting the documents filed by the assessee by holding the same to be additional evidences while no such documents were filed which were not before the AO.

In theAppellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the evidences filed stating the same to be additional evidences and thus, sustained the order of the Learned AO. Though, the learned CIT (A) at page number 4 extracted the reply submitted by the assessee wherein it was submitted that the brought forward capital balance of ₹1,45,28,344, which was represented by certain assets, mainly Ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans and advances and certain business assets. It was also submitted that all the

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that in this case the assessee has furnished before the AO as well as before the Learned CIT (A) the complete set of documents, evidences, evidencing that brought forward capital balance was represented by certain assets, mainly ancestral land and building inherited by him upon the death of his father, amounts given as loans advances and certain business assets. We note that the learned CIT (A) extracted the reply of the assessee on page number 4 and 5 of the appellate order.We note that the opening balance of capital was ₹1,45,28,344/-, the net surplus for the year of ₹29,876/- (Income ₹216876/- less drawing of ₹1,87,000/-) was added to arrive the closing balance of ₹1,45,58,220/-.We note that despite the assessee furnishing all the evidences, the ld. AO passed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The AO passed the said order despite the fact that assessee furnished all the documents of the property showing ownership in his land and flats which were acquired by way of inheritance in 1995 upon the death of assessee ‘s father and by way of allotment acquired through a development agreement with the builder. We also note that there was no material before the ld. AO to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee introduced capital during the previous year under assessment while the facts evidences on record showed that the assessee had brought forward balance from the preceding financial year and during the year only added the profit of ₹2,16,876 as has reduced by personal drawing of rupees ₹1,87,000/-. Therefore, order passed by the learned CIT (A) suffered from various anomalies and deficiencies as the appellate authority has failed to take into account all these evidences on finding that these