2022 (9) TMI 701 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Cash Deposits in Bank - application seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - HELD THAT - It is evident from the record that, in the present case, the documents, now furnish before us by way of additional evidence, could not be filed by the assessee before the lower authorities and the impugned addition was made in absence of these details. Further the learned CIT(A) also dismissed assessee s appeal rejecting the admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee. In view of the above, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after consideration of all details, as submitted by the assessee. Assessing Officer shall also have the liberty to call for or examine any other documents/detail as may be necessary for complete adjudication of this issue. As a result, the sole ground raised in present appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 28/06/2019 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 regarding addition of Rs.26,20,000 on account of Cash Deposits in Bank.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the addition of Rs.26,20,000 on account of cash deposits in the bank. The assessee, an individual and proprietor of a firm, derived income from business and other sources, specifically courier services. The Assessing Officer observed a variance in receipts under section 194C compared to the income tax return, along with significant cash deposits in the savings bank account. The AO treated the cash deposit of Rs. 26 lakh as income earned from undisclosed sources. In the appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted additional evidence, including confirmation from relatives, passbook copies, and balance-sheet of the firm. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence and held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions with relatives, and the availability of cash with the proprietary concern. The Tribunal noted that the documents submitted as additional evidence were not filed before the lower authorities, and the impugned addition was made without these details. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all details. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all submissions and necessary documents for a complete adjudication of the issue.

The Tribunal emphasized that no order should be passed without affording the assessee a proper hearing and the Assessing Officer had the liberty to examine any additional documents or details required for a thorough adjudication. Consequently, the sole ground raised in the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed. The decision was pronounced in open court on 05/09/2022.