What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that in the interest of justice, the additional evidence (cash book) should be admitted. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 10,45,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee, a senior citizen who had undergone bypass surgery, could not attend the AO's proceedings and was denied permission to submit additional evidence by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not admitting additional evidence and violating the principle of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

Pramod Ratilal Shah vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Mall, Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju

For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayan Raju

Hearing: 15.05.2017Pronounced: 15.05.2017

आदेश / O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 04.11.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11.

The grounds of appeal

read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (appeals) did not consider the Cash book as submitted by the appellant.

2. The learned Commissioner appeals violated the principle of natural justice by not giving proper opportunity of being heard to your appellant.

3. Your appellant request leave to allow her to alter, amend, modify or to add to grounds of appeal stated hereinabove and to treat the above grounds as independent from each other.”

During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer on perusal of the information in ITS details noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,45,000 in his saving bank account with ICICI Bank. The AO has given an opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit, but no reply has been filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O. treated the same as unexplained cash deposit of the assessee and added the same to his total income.

3. Before the learned CIT(A) it was mentioned that the assessee is a senior citizen, who has undergone bypass surgery and therefore he could not attend the hearing before the A.O. The assessee also wanted to submit additional evidence in the shape of cash book to explain the deposits. However, the learned CIT(A) did not permit the additional evidence and proceeded to confirm the action of the Assessing Officer, against this order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

I have carefully considered the grievances of both sides. In my considered opinion, in the interest of justice, the additional evidence needs to be admitted. The assessee’s submission that he is a senior citizen and has undergone bypass surgery, which prevented him from appearing before the Assessing Officer, cannot be brushed aside. Accordingly, I remit this issue to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider the issue afresh keeping in mind the additional evidence being submitted by the assessee, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

. Pramod Ratilal Shah 5. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

PRAMOD RATILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments