NAVEEN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT -34(1) , DELHI

1 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the fact that the bills, vouchers, etc. and other accounts have not been duly considered by the Ld. AO and hence the assessee has suffered the impugned additions. 2. Ld. AR vehemently argued that all the relevant details and evidences were available with the assessee and in case a holistic view had been taken then there would not have been any addition whatsoever. The Ld. AR took pains to point out the documents and evidences produced before the authorities below. On a query from the Bench regarding the finding in the impugned order at para 5.3.4 on page 8, regarding the doubt about the quantum of cash deposits during the demonetization period, as compared to the earlier years, the Ld. AR mentioned that such deposits could be readily explained by the evidences in possession of the assessee. 2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the impugned additions have been made on account of some lacunae in the quality of evidence produced before the authorities below. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of the Ld. AO for examining the evidences available with the assessee and thereafter, assessing the correct income of the assessee. 3

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.