IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1652/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 SHRI BASANAGOUDA PATIL, PROP: KAMADENU TRADERS, SHOP NO.3, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, LINGERI COMPLEX, YADGIR 585 202. PAN: AKBPP 5745L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, YADGIR. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SHRI B.S. BALACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKAS SURYAWANSHI, ADDL.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALU RU. DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .12.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT, IS BAD AND UNSUST AINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 2. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT FOR THE P URPOSES OF S.68 OF THE IT ACT, IT IS THE AMOUNT/ SUM CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT PASS BOOK AS HELD BY VARIOUS COURT S; AND HENCE THE ADDITION WAS BAD IN LAW. 3. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ALLE GED DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BANK BALANCE WAS NEVER PUT AC ROSS TO THE ITA NO.1652/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 APPELLANT BY THE A.O. AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION SH OULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) APPRECIATED THAT T HE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE WAS AGAIN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND NOT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. 5. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEA L MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH ARE DULY EXPLAINED TO THE AO AND THE CIT(APPE ALS), BUT THEY HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CASH BOOK EXPLAINING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH FOR DEPOSITING IN THE BANK, BUT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR READJUDICATIO N OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. 4. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION ALONG WITH THE CASH BOOK SHOWING THE AVAILABILITY O F CASH FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, BUT ALL THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT PROPERL Y EXAMINED BY THE LOWER ITA NO.1652/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 AUTHORITIES. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR ADJUDICATION OF T HE ISSUE AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET A SIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO FOR READJUDICATION OF THE IMPUGN ED ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.