VEERABABU NARAPI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

Assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) and submitted the bank statements explaining the deposits. Learned CIT(A), however, recorded that such bank statements were already on record and considered by the learned Assessing Officer and, therefore, he requires new material to consider the issues in appeal, stating that no new material is produced, learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 4. Hence, this appeal by the assessee, contending that the deposits represent the withdrawals in the close proximity of time and because of the demonetization, the assessee was compelled to deposit the entire amount into the bank and as a matter of fact, the assessee withdrew the amounts for purchase of agricultural land. 5. Per contra, learned DR submitted that before the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee did not explain his case and before the learned CIT(A) also he did not produce any material to substantiate his claim. Therefore, learned DR submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) is justified. 6. I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. When the learned Assessing Officer stated that in spite of opportunity granted, the assessee did not produce any explanation or material to justify the deposits in the bank account, the learned CIT(A) is not factually correct to say that such material was available before the learned Assessing Officer and the learned Assessing Officer considered the same. In fact, the learned Assessing Officer did not consider anything. Apart from that, nothing prevented the learned CIT(A) from considering the explanation of the assessee that on 16/08/2016 and 24/10/2016, the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing agricultural land, but due to sudden demonetization of specified bank notes, the assessee was compelled to deposit the same into bank account along with his other savings. This fact is evident from the statement of

This bank statement further supports the contention of the assessee that because of demonetization, the other specified bank notes were not accepted by the other parties, hence by depositing entire Rs. 24 lakhs into the bank account on 30/11/2016 and the assessee had to transfer an amount of Rs. 22.86 lakhs by way of RTGS.

In these circumstances, I set aside the orders of the Revenue authorities and direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the Andhra Bank account of the assessee to know whether there were withdrawals to the tune of total amount of Rs. 21 lakhs on 16/08/2016 and 24/10/2016, if that be so, to delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed accordingly.