PIYUSH JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD. 18(2)(3) NEW 21(2)(5), MUMBAI

We heard the parties and perused the record. The AO received AIR information to the effect that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating to Rs.17,89,490/- in IDBI Bank. The assessee denied the same and hence the AO called for details from the bank. When the details were confronted to the assessee, he could not furnish any explanation and hence the AO assessed the above said amount as income of the assessee. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished explanations and additional evidences. Hence the Ld CIT(A) called for 2 Piyush Jayantilal Shah a remand report from the AO. However the AO objected to the admission of additional evidences. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he actually attended before the AO on 30.12.2008 and hence he did not have time to offer any explanation. According to the assessee, the AO passed the assessment order by dating it on 29-12-2008. Accordingly he pleaded for admission of additional evidences and explanations. The Ld CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee and accordingly confirmed the addition.

Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to offer explanations with regard to the deposits made into the bank account. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the same afresh by duly considering the information and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 8.12.2016