S.RADHIKA, BY P.A.SMT. V.SASIKALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, PONDICHERRY

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry dated 19.12.2016 in C. No. 9127A(104)/Pr.CIT/PDY/2014-15 for the assessment year 2009- 10 passed U/s.263 r.w.s 143(3) & 147 of the Act.

The assessee has raised several grounds in her appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) U/s.263 of the Act, wherein he directed the Ld.AO to add sum of Rs.1,05,51,047/- as unexplained credit U/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition made for Rs.1,90,847/- U/s.68 of the Act.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual earning income from house property and interest income, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009- 10 on 27.07.2009, admitting total income of Rs.1,80,163/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed U/s.143 r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 26.08.2014, wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.2,75,750/- U/s.69 of the Act with respect to the investment made on the purchase of a property and further made an addition of Rs.1,90,847/- under the head “unexplained investment”. Subsequently, the Principal CIT after examining the case of the assessee and her bank accounts arrived at a conclusion that the amount of unexplained cash credit was Rs.1,05,51,047/- and not Rs.1,90,847/- as arrived at by the Ld.AO in his assessment order. Therefore, he directed the Ld.AO to pass fresh assessment order directing him to make addition of Rs.1,05,51,047/- instead of Rs.1,90,847/- U/s. 68 of the Act, in the hands of the assessee.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the entire receipt in the bank account of the assessee was by way of cheque payments and fixed deposit closures. He further submitted that the entire transaction in the bank account of the assessee was explainable and accounted. Therefore, he pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh verification and thereafter decide the matter on merits. The Ld.DR on the other hand argued in support of the order of the Ld.Principal CIT.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. Considering the prayer of the Ld.AR, we are of the considered view that there is no harm for the Ld.AO to verify the entire transaction and thereafter arrive at a conclusion on merits instead of simply following the directions of the Ld. Principal CIT. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby modify the order of the Ld. Principal CIT by directing the Ld.AO to consider the issue afresh after examining all the relevant documents and materials and thereafter decide the matter on merits and as per law and without being influenced by the finding of the Ld.Principal CIT. We also hereby direct the Ld.AO to accept any additional evidence furnished by the assessee in order to prove her claim.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.