TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.68 addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.19,32,283/- representing credit from a realty entity viz., M/s. Tirupati Construction Prakash JV.

The assessee’s stand on the other hand is that at has filed additional evidence inter alia including the assessment records of M/s. Tirupati Construction Prakash JV; it’s returns and all other details running into 59 pages forming part of the paper book. Mr. Shingte sought to buttress the point that some of the said documents are indeed in the nature of additional evidence which require to be verified at the Assessing Officer’s end. Learned counsel further stated that the assessee could not file all these details before the lower authorities on account of Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak.

Learned DR could hardly dispute that all these additional evidences is very much relevant since going to the root of the foregoing sole issue of sec.68 addition made in the lower proceedings.

Faced with this situation, I hereby restore the assessee’s sole substantive ground back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication subject to the rider that it shall be the assessee’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the 3 ITA.No.1279/PUN./2023 relevant facts within three effective opportunities of hearing on consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.