ARUN KUMAR DHONDI KUBEER,ARMOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of money lending and real

Page 1 of 6 estate, derives income from house property, share of profits from Partnership firms (i) Arun Paints and Hardware and (ii) M/s. Navanatha Puri Finance Corporation, capital gains, interest income as well as agricultural income. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 04.05.2018 admitting a total income of Rs.5,29,400 and estimated Agricultural income of Rs.1,65,000. The Appellant was served upon notices u/s 133(6) regarding transactions with The Citizen Co-operative Credit Society. The Appellant has filed his response to notice u/s 133(6) along with the information called for. The Case has been selected for scrutiny and served notices U/s 148,143(2) and 142(l). During the assessment proceedings the appellant has submitted cash book, copies of bank statements along with statements of income. During the scrutiny proceedings the appellant submitted details of immovable assets along with copies of sale deeds, all bank statements of the assessee and his family members bank accounts, details of Income Tax Returns filed etc. The Assessing Officer rejected all the arguments of the assessee and has passed Assessment Order u/s 143(3) Dt.31.12.2018 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c).

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that, when the learned CIT (A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer which are available in Paragraph 6.2 of his order. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer at Page 2 of 6 page No.7 & 8 of the paper book, mentioned that, the assessee is having a negative cash balance of Rs.32,59,087/-. The remand report of Assessing Officer is reproduced herein below:

The learned AR submitted that despite the above, the learned CIT (A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee for the reasons mentioned therein. It was further submitted that the learned CIT (A) at page 6 of his order had mentioned about the negative cash balance of the assessee, however, despite that, the learned CIT (A) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer, by mentioning that the assessee was not able to prove negative balance with reference to documentary evidence. It was submitted

Page 4 of 6 that, once the negative cash balance has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, it was not required for the learned CIT (A) to pass the impugned order.

The learned DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee was not able to explain with reference to the documentary evidences about the negative cash balance and therefore, it would be appropriate, if the matter is remanded back to the file of the lower authorities for fresh adjudication of the issue.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In our view, once the Assessing Officer in the remand report at page 7 & 8 reproduced herein above mentioned the documents furnished to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer on the basis of which negative cash balance was arrived for an amount of Rs.35,48,735/-, then the learned CIT (A) need not require any explanation. However, the Bench asked from the learned Assessing Officer, to explain how negative cash balance has been arrived during the course of hearing, to which the learned DR who appeared virtually submitted that the matter may kindly be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer who will examine afresh and pass the appropriate orders to which the assessee has no objections. Since the assessee have no objection for remanding the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer, in the light of the above, when both the parties have agreed for remand of the matter to the file of the Assessing

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Since we have remand all the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue, the stay applications filed by the assessee have become infructuous. Hence, the stay applications filed by the assessee are dismissed.