MONI SAMANTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of advertising. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 06.08.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,38,610/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was called upon by the AO to explain the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account in the year under consideration. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was received by him in cash against Moni Samanta the sale of agricultural land at Midnapore and the same was deposited in his account. A copy of sale agreement dated 07.11.2013 was also filed by the assessee to support to substantiate his explanation. This explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the AO. He noted that the agricultural land claimed to be sold by the assessee was not reflected in his balance sheet for the earlier years and there was no income shown by the assessee from the agriculture. He, therefore, treated the sale agreement of agricultural land filed by the assessee as bogus and made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained.

The addition made by the AO of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s 68 was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before him, the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to establish the identity, capacity and creditworthiness of the persons who was claimed to have purchased the agricultural land of the assessee and made payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash. The assessee however failed to comply with the said requirement. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the sale of agricultural land as claimed by the assessee on the basis of agreement dated 07.11.2013 had not become final even upto end of 2017. He, therefore, proceeded to confirm the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 by treating the cash deposits found to be made in the account of the assessee as unexplained. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

Moni Samanta 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the relevant details and documents were not available with the assessee either during the course of assessment proceedings on even during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove the ownership of agricultural land as well as sale thereof for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- received in cash. He has submitted that the assessee however has now collected these details and documents and the same are being filed before the Tribunal as additional evidence with the request for admission of the same. A perusal of the said documents filed by the assessee shows that the same are relevant to decide the issue involved in the assessee’s case. It is also noted that some of the said documents have been made available to the assessee only after the disposal of the appeal of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order. Even the learned DR has not disputed that these documents filed by the assessee as additional evidence are relevant to decide the issue involved in the present appeal. He however has contended that an opportunity should be given to the AO to verify the said documents which are being filed by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal to support and substantiate his case, I find merit in this contention of the learned DR. Accordingly the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue under consideration is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee one more opportunity to support and substantiate his case on the basis of fresh evidence.