SAANDIIP SHESHRAO SAGANE,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, NANDED, NANDED

Coming to the assessee’s sold substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making section 69A r.w.s.115BBE unexplained investment addition of Rs.11,92,000/-, learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that the assessee could not 2 ITA.No.171/PUN/2024 Saandip Sheshrao Sagane file the relevant evidence because of communication gaps and outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. He further invited my attention to the assessee’s additional evidence(s) running into 32 pages along confirmation of the concerned parties that the same forms relevant material going to root of the matter which require fresh factual verification by the learned field authorities.

The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence(s) is indeed relevant so as to explain the source of his cash deposits in question. Faced with this situation, I restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the file of learned Assessing Officer to be decided afresh, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only to plead and prove all facts with the relevant evidence(s) in consequential proceedings.

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