IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 380/PNJ/2014 : (A.Y 2008 - 09) VIDYANAND V. BANOSHI PROP. BABA ELECTRICALS NO. 218, GHORDE GALLI, KHANAPUR, DIST. BELGAUM (APPELLANT) PAN : AIUPB7200P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BELGAUM, GOKAK. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : VIDYANAND V. BANOSHI, ASSESSEE IN PERSON REVENUE BY : S. NATARAJ , LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 /07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 8 /07/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BELGAUM IN ITA NO. 641/BGM/2012 - 13 DT. 1 8 .11.2013 FOR THE A.Y 2008 - 09. SHRI VIDYANAND V. BANOSHI, THE ASSESSEE IN PERSON REPRESENTED HIS APPEAL AND SHRI S. NATARAJ, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD BROUGHT TO TAX PAYMENTS REPRESENTING PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/ - IN CASH AND HAD ALSO MADE AN ADDITION REPRESENTING SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ON THE BASIS OF THE 2 ITA NO. 380/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND HAD ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT DELETED SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN REDUCED . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT FURTHER EVIDENCES ARE NOW AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED TO SUBMIT THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS IN RESPECT OF PAYM ENTS EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/ - WERE AVAILABLE, AS ALSO EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR THE AO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/07/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 8 /07/ 201 5 *SSL* 3 ITA NO. 380/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 380/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2008 - 09) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28/07/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28/07/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 2 9 /07/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 2 9 /07/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 9 /07/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/07/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 9 /07/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER