MANMEET SINGH NANRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.08.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

This appeal is filed by delay of 155 days. The Ld. A.R. submitted the affidavit wherein the assessee submitted that the assessee had entrusted the work to his erstwhile Chartered Accountant who handled the matter before CIT(A) to guide him in the matter further. Since there was no communication from the erstwhile Chartered Accountant as to whether appeal is filed before

I have gone through the affidavit and found that the reason mentioned in the affidavit is genuine. Hence, I condone the delay and proceed to dispose the appeal.

The short facts of the case are as under: Assessee is an individual filed the return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.1,18,030/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) had AIR information and the found that the total bank deposits of Rs.18,10,687/-. The AO noted that assessee has not declared this amount in return of income. Assessee had declared sale of goods of Rs.1,98,500/- and long term capital loss. AO issued a several notices to the assessee but assessee did not reply. Therefore, assessment was done under section 144 of the Act.

Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had submitted additional evidence which had been objected by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before me.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. has submitted two set of paper book before me and submitted that this evidence may be 3 M/s. Manmeet Singh Nanra admitted and it may be verified by the AO from the respective bank and return of income may also be verified by the AO. Therefore, if this evidence is considered, then no addition is called for. Therefore, it may be admitted and matter may be restored to AO.

The Ld. D.R. objected to it.

Having heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit this additional evidence which goes to the route of the case. I find that the assessee has submitted the evidences viz. a bank statement, bill of jewellery purchased, HDFC bank statement summary, purchase of old machinery, sale bill of old machinery, income tax return of assessee’s father and income tax return of assessee’s mother, letter of relative along with letter submitted to AO. I admit all these additional evidences and hence restore this matter back to the file of AO and AO is directed to decide the matter afresh.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.