SHRI PARESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX WARD- 1,BARDOLI,, SURAT

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer, therefore, assessee is in appeal before us.

Before us, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted additional evidences in respect of two bank accounts. The same is explained in the written submissions filed before the Bench by the ld Counsel, the said written submission (relevant part only) is reproduced below: “IV, Submission on Addition of Rs.31,99,484/- for Bank A/c. No. 081701400006643 and 0810140008924. The appellant is an Individual/ working as on employee with Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to AIR the appellant had deposited amount of Rs. 15,40,800/- in Bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. According to Information u/s. 133(6) of the Act given by the bank, the appellant maintains 3 bank accounts referred to above. The A/c. No. 081701400006643 is owned by Sunilkumar Hargovindbhai Prajapati. He is staying at Australia. The A/c. No. 08101400008924 is owned by A.Y. 09-10 Sh. Pareshbhai R Prajapati Nikita Bhavesh Patel, she is staying in USA. The appellant was operating these account for and behalf of and according to instructions of persons residing outside India. The appellant submitted the mail confirmations with PAN of two persons who owned up the transaction as belonging to them. The original confirmations / Affidavits were not available since vide Notice dtd.25.11.2011 enclosed herewith the Assessing Officer had called for this details and the order was passed on 21.12.2011. (Page 55 to 56) It was not possible to get the original Affidavits of the persons residing outside India. Hence, the following additional evidences are submitted. i. The Affidavit of Sunil Hagovindbhai Prajapati for Bank A/c. No. 081701400006643. (Page 57) ii. The confirmation of Nikita Patel for A7c. No. 0810140008924. Since, the appellant is not the owner of these 2 Accounts and transactions pertain to Sunil Prajapati and Nikita Patel who had owned up the same, the addition of these 2 Accounts cannot be made in the hands of the appellant…..”

Learned Senior DR for the Revenue argued that additional evidence submitted by the assessee were neither examined by ld CIT(A) nor by assessing officer, therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) to examine these additional evidences by taking remand report from the assessing officer in respect of these additional evidences.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that additional evidence in respect of bank account No.08170140006643 is an affidavit of Sunil Hargovindbhai Prajapati, which is placed at page no. 57 of the paper book. The assessee also filed confirmation of Nikita Bhaveshbhai Patel in respect of bank account No.08170140008924, as an additional evidence, which is placed at page no. 58 of the paper book. These documents are additional evidences which were not remitted back by Ld. CIT(A) to the file of the Assessing Officer for his examination and to call remand report about these additional evidences, filed by assessee. Therefore, we note that these additional evidences have not been examined by Assessing Officer, hence in the interest of justice and fair play we remit this issue back to the file of the ld CIT(A) with the direction to take remand report form assessing officer about these additional evidences and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Therefore, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.