RAMLAH IDRIS GHADIALY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(2), MUMBAI

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs.18,15,800/- in respect of credit in the bank account with Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank ltd. u/s.68 of I.T.Act.

At the outset, ld. AR placed on record order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2008-09, wherein exactly similar issue was considered by the Tribunal vide order dated 14-1-2016 and the matter was restored back to the file of AO for deciding afresh after due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Precise observation of the Tribunal was as under :-

2 “4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us. After hearing both the parties and considering the above submissions of the Ld Counsel for the assessee, we find it relevant to remand this issue to the file of the AO on the ground of „natural justice‟. We have also noticed that assessee made submissions to the Authorities below for considering the „peak credit additions‟. But, without assigning any reasons or without passing any speaking order, CIT (A) confirmed the additions, which in our opinion is unsustainable in law. Therefore, we order the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after attending to all the submissions of the assessee including the requirement of considering the attendance of the brother of the assessee and also attending to the approved manner of adding „peak credits‟ only in matters where the assessee discharged his own and in matters of end utilization of the cash withdrawals from the bank account. AO shall grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”