SRI. VINOD N PATIL,DHARWAD vs. ITO, HUBLI

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.16.3.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

3. The assessee is a dealer in electronic goods. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.7.2009 showing an income of Rs.1,63,650. In the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not maintained any books. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made several deposits on various dates and also made payment by cheque / cash. The assessee explained that they are out of sale proceeds credited in Bank account and also income from agriculture. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and make the addition of peak cash balance of Rs.6,71,344 for which no explanation was furnished by the assessee.

The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) but could not succeed. assessee has submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce the relevant details and documents comprising profit and loss account, ledger account of purchases & sales and bank account copy. The learned Authorised Representative has further submitted that due to the closure of the business the assessee was not in a position to produce the relevant record as required by the CIT (Appeals). However the assessee has now produced the relevant record and is seeking the permission of the Tribunal to produce the additional evidence vide application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. Thus the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has pleaded that the additional evidence filed by the assessee may be admitted in support of the claim and the matter may be remanded for verification of the same.

“ It is found from the grounds of appeal that the assessee has contested the additions made of Rs.6,77,844 only and has accepted the other additions made of Rs.1,36,204 plus Rs.62,165 and Rs.50. The case was posted for hearing on 19.1.2016 when Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, A.R. of the assessee appeared. He was asked to file P&L Account, Ledger Account of purchases and sales and bank accounts copies. The case was adjourned to 25.1.2016. Since no one attended on this day of the case was reposted on 8.3.16, when Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, AR of the assessee, attended. He expressed his inability to file the details called for on 19.1.2016 as they are not available.”

As it is clear from the impugned order that the CIT (Appeals) asked the assessee to file profit and loss account, ledger account of purchases and sales & bank account copies but assessee did not produce. Now the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules and also filed the additional evidence comprising the profit and loss account, bank account, etc. The assessee has authorities below due to the closure of the business. In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as in the interest of justice the matter is set aside to the record of the CIT (Appeals) to decide the same afresh after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee.