SRI, BETTAIAH RAMAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the course of hearing the stay petition, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that proper compliance could not be made by the assessee before the AO and before CIT (A), the assessee produced additional evidence but CIT (A) did not admit the additional evidence. He submitted that the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the same should be admitted and if the same is admitted, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after considering the additional evidence and if that is done, the stay petition will become infructuous. The ld. DR of revenue submitted that in view of rule 46A of IT Rules, the additional evidence should not be admitted.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by CIT (A) in Para 6 of his order that the assessee has furnished the confirmations in respect of loan creditors and the sundry creditors only on 27.03.2015 and in spite of delay in furnishing the relevant details, the AO had examined the confirmation letters but it was observed by the AO that the confirmations were received from agriculturists and such confirmation letters did not have the PAN. We also find that additional evidence was submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) but the same was not admitted by CIT(A) by saying that there is no specific request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A. We also find that as per ground no. 3b raised before us, it is the claim of the assessee that credits of Rs. 60,08,264/- out of addition u/s. 68 of Rs. 85,04,764/- was opening balance as on 01.04.2011 and therefore, the same cannot be added in the present year u/s. 68.

Although there is no such ground was raised before CIT(A) and there is no such decision on this aspect of the matter but still, we feel it proper in the interest of justice that the entire matter should go back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering the additional evidence and also after considering this aspect of the matter as to whether any part of the amount added u/s. 68 was not the new credit in the present year but was opening balance because if this contention is correct then no addition can be made u/s. 68 in the present year in respect of opening balance in the account of the creditors. Hence we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision and we do not make any comment on the merit of the case. The CIT(A) should decide this appeal afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides and after admitting the additional evidence if any filed before him. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. In view of this decisionas per which we have decided the appeal of the assessee, the stay petition has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly.