A.NARAYANASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The assessee’s grievance in this appeal is with regard to addition of �22,74,860/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had electronically fiked his income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring his income of �4,20,590/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) determining the total income at �26,95,450/- by adding the cash deposit of �22,74,860/- as unexplained income. The Assessing Officer has also levied interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C amounting to �1,02,760/-, �2,64,240/- and �1,455/- respectively. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 02.09.2014 confirmed the above addition. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen deriving income from ‘’House Property’’. There is sufficient cash balance on hand and same was deposited into his bank account and there is no unexplained investment or unexplained credit. He I.T.A.No2928/Mds/2014. :- 3 -: submitted that the assessee could explain every transaction in bank account if proper opportunity of hearing is given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. We are inclined to consider this request of assessee’s counsel. Accordingly, we remit the disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Further, we also direct the assessee to place full particulars of financial statements and other evidence to support his case and thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall consider the same after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 26th of March, 2015 at Chennai