KOTHAKAPU SRIDHAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the learned AO made the addition on the ground that though the bank accounts revealed the deposit of huge amounts, the assessee did not produce any evidence to discharge the primary onus to explain the source of the monies. Though the assessee submitted the documents and also the written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings on 30/05/2022, it missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) recorded that the assessee failed to explain the nature and sources of investments and not responded to the notices of the authorities, either during the scrutiny as well as the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR, therefore, submits that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that the assessee could not offer satisfactory explanation. In these circumstances, she prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to bring the documents filed by the assessee to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A).

Though the Ld.DR opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee, the fact remains that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the written submissions and documents filed on behalf of the assessee and to pass appropriate order according to law. We hold and order so.

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.