BINU SURENDRAN, KOLLAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATHANKOT

ITA 638/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2642 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Binu Surendran Binu Bhawan, Kelan Cava Maniyar, P.O. Punalur Distt Kollam, Kerla 691325 [PAN: AMIPS7638A] (Appellant) Vs. ITO-Ward 6(1), Pathankot. (Respendent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. S.M.Surendra Nath Sr.D. R. Date of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Amritsar [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. 10378/2017-18, date of order 28.09.2018, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the IT Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2010-11. The impugned order raised I.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2018 2 from the order of the ld. ITO, Ward -6(1), Pathankot, order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 27.11.2017. 2. Brief fact is that during the assessment proceeding the addition was made Rs.11,40,800/- related to deposit of cash in ICICI Bank which was treated as unexplained income by the ld. AO and the addition was also made Rs.5431/- related to security transaction. During the appellate proceeding the assessee filed an affidavit in support of his claim related to deposit of cash in bank account. The assessee filed two affidavits one assessee’s father Sh. Sunderam related Rs. 4 lac and his wife Smt. Bindu related Rs.3,25,000/- to substantiate its claim. The ld.CIT(A) disallowed the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules,1962 {in brevity the Rule} as a reason that the assessee had not explained the reason of non submission of documents before the AO. Due to non explanation of reasonable cause under Rule 46A of the Rule the evidences are rejected. Accordingly addition was sustained. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. We relied on the documents available in the record. The ld. DR also submitted his arguments. The assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity for substantiate its claim during the time of appellate proceeding. The ld. CIT(A) did not allow the assessee to express the reason for non submission of the documents before the ld. AO. In this moment we are considering the issue of setting aside before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has no objection for further adjudicating the I.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2018 3 issue before the ld. appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is setting aside de novo before the ld. CIT(A) for further consideration of the additional evidence of the assessee & directed to pass a speaking order.Further, the assessee should get reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim during hearing. No other grounds are to discuss. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order