"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य, एिं श्री एस बालाक ृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.162/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sivaji Raju Bellamkonda 26-14-19, Lavanya Apartments Annapurnadevi Street Gandhinagar – 520003 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AFNPB6474M] v. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(3) C.R. Building, 1st Floor M.G. Road – 520002 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Kowtha Venkat Subbarao, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11.06.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JM: 1. The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax / ADDL / JCIT(A), Panchkula (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072443889 (1) I.T.A. No.162/VIZ/2025 Sivaji Raju Bellamkonda Page No. 2 dated 23.01.2025 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 11.12.2018. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69, despite the fact that the bank statements of Smt. Padmavathi Bellamkonda now establish a direct fund trail proving the source of investment. That the learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that there was no link between the property sale proceeds and the investment, whereas the newly submitted evidence (bank statements, cash withdrawal details, and reinvestment proof) unequivocally demonstrates the flow of funds. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,06,786 as unexplained cash credits, without properly appreciating that the appellant has now submitted notarized affidavits as proof of unsecured loans received from Mr. Jillella Prasad and Mr. Pakalapati Peddiraju. That the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's explanation regarding small loans solely due to the non-availability of lenders' bank statements or ITRs, despite the small amounts involved and the difficulty in obtaining old financial records. 3. At the outset, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] filed a paper book and also various details relating to the addition made by the Ld. AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The paper book filed by the assessee consisting of 68 pages completely additional evidences which is neither filed before Ld. AO nor before Ld. CIT(A). Ld.AR prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted and prayed that this appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for proper appreciation of the facts. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”], however, objected for admission of additional evidences at this stage, I.T.A. No.162/VIZ/2025 Sivaji Raju Bellamkonda Page No. 3 however, she has no objection to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for verification. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has filed before us additional evidence which is neither filed before the Ld. AO nor before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the opinion that these additional evidences filed by the assessee can be placed before Ld. AO. Since the additional evidences goes to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for proper verification of the same and we direct the Ld. AO to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO and direct the Ld. AO to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025. Sd/- (एस बालाक ृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (िी. दुर्ाा राि)Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12/06/2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS I.T.A. No.162/VIZ/2025 Sivaji Raju Bellamkonda Page No. 4 आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Sivaji Raju Bellamkonda 26-14-19, Lavanya Apartments Annapurnadevi Street Gandhinagar – 520003 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(3) C.R. Building, 1st Floor M.G. Road – 520002 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम/DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल/ Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "