ANIL KUMAR,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD , FARIDABAD

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly against preceded ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated assessee’s cash deposits of Rs. 40,01,200/- as unexplained which has been rightly confirmed in the lower appellate findings. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that although the learned Assessing Officer had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, the assessee latter chose to file his additional evidences in the lower appellate proceedings attributing the source of cash deposits to various gifts from close relatives as well as arising from lands sale transactions, as the case may be.

Learned departmental representative invites the undersigned’s attention to para 5.1 that this evidence has already been declined on the ground that the assessee could not even substantiate the corresponding claims.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and the Revenue’s vehement contentions herein reiterating their respective stands. I am of the considered view that once the assessee has filed his additional evidence under section 46A of the Income Tax Rules before the CIT(A)/NFAC, it was incumbent upon the learned lower appellate authority to deal with 2 | P a g e it in accordance with law than asking the assessee to substantiate the same without even getting the remand report from the Assessing Officer. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that he shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities, at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.