SK. SAWKAT ALI ,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 55(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 101 days for filing the assessee’s appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with doctor’s certificate to show that the assessee was suffering from Chicken Pox and was unable to file the appeal on time. After having gone through the condonation application and Doctor’s Medical certificate, we note that the delay in filing appeal on time was not intentional and there was reasonable cause. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

The only grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.3,29,863/- which was made by the AO as unexplained investment of the assessee. Brief facts of the case are that the AO noted that the assessee had made an investment to the tune of Rs.7,75,000/-. According to AO from a perusal of the bank details and other sources of income it could be only discerned that the assessee had an amount of Rs.4,45,137/- with him. Since the assessee did not appear and had not given

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforesaid facts are not repeated for the sake of brevity. We note that the AO has passed best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act because the assessee did not turn up before him with the relevant papers to substantiate the investment made by assessee. The AO noted that there is a difference between the investment and the source of income, so he made an addition of Rs.3,29,863/-. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee tried to adduce evidence to show that the assessee had sold his agricultural property and the sale consideration he obtained could explain the source of the investment was not entertained by the Ld.CIT(A). We note that since the assessee could not produce the relevant documents before the AO for reasons beyond his control [because of illness], the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have called for the remand report to verify the veracity of the documents produced before him, which he has not bothered to do so which culminated in confirmation of the addition. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid action of Ld.CIT(A). In any case, the documents to substantiate the investment is in the possession of assessee, and the addition was ordered by AO because the assessee did not turn up before him with the relevant papers to substantiate the investment made by assessee. So for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication of this issue and direct the assessee to produce all relevant documents to explain the source of his investment. Needless to say, assessee should be given opportunity of hearing and the AO to pass a speaking order in accordance to law. Therefore, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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