TUSHAR KANTI DUTTA ,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 23, HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y.2014-15 arises against the ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata’s order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A),Kolkata- 6/10192/2016-17 upholding the AO’s action making unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.5,63,912/- in assessment order dated 26.12.2016 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). Heard both parties. Case file perused.

The relevant facts involved in the instant case is in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the assessee had deposited the sum in question of Rs.5,63,912/- in ICICI Bank, Uttarpara Branch. The AO added the same in assessment order dated 26.12.2016 on account of his failure in explaining the source thereof during the course of assessment.

The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A)’s order indicates that he had also sought to placed on record additional evidence during the course of lower appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) declines the same in its lower appellate order under challenge.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions reiterating both the parties’ respective stand. The ld. Counsel invites our attention to para-5 of Kanti Dutta A.Y.2014-15 2 the lower appellate order indicating the assessee to have explained the source of the im,pugned deposits to Demand Drafts receipts, bank transfer and cash obtained from ‘Team Associates’ involving various sums. The ld. CIT(A) terms the same to be additional evidence not admissible under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. We find no merit in his impugned action. There is no clear indication in the lower appellate findings as to which of the relevant conditions in the said rule prescribing admission of evidence in the lower appellate proceedings have been violated at the assessee’s behest. We therefore accept the assessee’s grievances for statistical purposes and remit the instant case back to the AO to decide afresh after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the tax payer. If the assessee fails to prove his case in the said specific opportunities, our instant remand directions would stand vacated. Thus assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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