, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2041/CHNY/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) SHRI P MURUGANANTHAN, ROOM NO.21, SRI MURUGAN MANSION, NO.18, ABDULLAH STREET, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI 600 094. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 17(2), CHENNAI. PAN: AKYPP7142C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y. SRIDHAR, CA / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITHA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, DATED 21.06.2017 IN ITA NO.124/CIT(A)-5/16 -17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 2041/CHNY/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD.AO WHO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.88,48,00 0/- INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ELECTRONICALLY DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,12,300/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. FINALLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S .143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29.06.2016 WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION O F RS.88,48,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT AS PER THE AIR REPORT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MADE LARGE CASH DEPOSITS AND MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS CREDI T CARD AGGREGATING TO RS.88,48,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.88,48,000/- , THE LD.AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AN D THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.88,48,000/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE 3 ITA NO. 2041/CHNY/2017 ORDER OF THE LD.AO BECAUSE EVEN BEFORE HIM, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR RS.88,48,000/-. 5. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR THE AFORESAID AMOUNT BECAUSE THE ASSESSE E IS NOW IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE DETAILS WHICH ESTABLISHES THE SOURCE OF RS.88,48,000/-. THE LD.DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH MER ITS IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT/ EXPENDI TURE. ACCORDINGLY WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.A O FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION DIRECTING THE LD.AO TO ADMIT ANY FRES H EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE ASSESSE ES SOURCE FOR THE INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRI ATE ORDER AS PER MERIT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO- OPERATE WITH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS IN ORD ER TO EXPEDITE THEIR 4 ITA NO. 2041/CHNY/2017 ORDERS FAILING WHICH THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES SH ALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER MERIT AND LAW BASED O N THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 17 TH APRIL, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /CHENNAI, %& /DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2018 RSR & () *) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /1 /GF