What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the cash flow statements and additional evidence were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue requires fresh adjudication.

The assessee deposited Rs. 43,77,000/- in cash, and the AO made an addition as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of these deposits. Additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A), who admitted it but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities properly considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits.

Mrs. Anita, Gurgaon vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2015

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI A.T. VARKEY

For Appellant: Shri KK Jaiswal, D.R

ORDER

PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order dated 31.7.2013 of Ld.CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10.

Facts in brief:- The assessee is an individual and the issue is explanation of sources of cash deposit of Rs.43,77,000/-. The AO made the addition on the ground that, despite various and sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.

On appeal the assessee filed additional evidences. The First Appellate Authority called for a remand report on the admissibility of such additional evidence together with the merit of the addition made in the light of the additional evidences. The AO submitted his remand report. After obtaining

ITA 5299/Del/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 Anita a rejoinder from the assessee, the First Appellate Authority admitted the additional evidence. Thereafter he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the order confirming an addition of Rs.44,50,012/- to the returned income as made by the A.O. The addition as made being arbitrary, erroneous and unjust must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.

After hearing Shri K.Sampath, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri KK Jaiswal, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue, we find that the cash flow statements furnished by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority were not examined. The AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A), in our opinion, have not properly considered all the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the issue requires fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. Thus the appeal is set aside to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th December, 2015.

MRS. ANITA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments