SARAN ELECTRICALS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of trading of electrical goods. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 25.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.56,622/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the required documentary evidence in order to establish the identity and capacity of the concerned creditors as well as the genuineness of the relevant transactions representing cash loans received from the said creditors. The Assessing ./2015 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 3 Officer, therefore, treated the said loans aggregating to Rs.6,41,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee.

The addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was failure on the part of the assessee to establish on evidence the identity and capacity of the concerned creditors as well as the genuineness of the relevant loan transactions, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.6,41,000/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee under section 68. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. During the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee has filed additional evidence in the form of declarations/confirmations of the concerned creditors, their Election Card/Passport along with Permanent Account Numbers in support of the assessee’s case. The assessee has also moved an application seeking admission of the said additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules on the ground that the said evidence was duly given by him to his Chartered Accountant, who represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the said Chartered Accountant failed to produce the same before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Keeping in view this reason given by the assessee as well as the relevance of the documents being filed as additional evidence to decide the issue involved in the case of the assessee relating to the addition made under section 68, I find this case to be a fit case to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any material objection in this regard. He, however, has contended that an opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer to verify this additional evidence filed by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. I find merit in this contention of the ./2015 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 3 ld. D.R. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after verifying the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

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