The two-member bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, remanded the case to the Assessing Officer after the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to verify the additional documents submitted by the assessee, which included detailed submissions on the ₹8.6 lakh addition related to gifts received from the assessee’s grandmother, Vajantabai Rajaram Mane, supported by her PAN, affidavit, and Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16.
The additions for the assessment year in question include an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 amounting to Rs. 8, 60,000, which was received from relatives. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of this amount were not substantiated by the assessee, leading to the determination that it was non-genuine. Additionally, a cash amount of Rs. 15, 00,000, which was seized and declared in the Return of Income under “other sources,” was not adequately explained by the assessee.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here
During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional documents, including bank account details, bills, water charges, pesticides for agricultural activities, and an affidavit explaining relationship details, supported by Aadhar Card and driving license proofs, to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)].
However, the CIT (A) did not consider these additional documents and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) without calling for a remand report from the AO, leading to the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. The counsel for the assessee has requested that the issue be remanded back to the CIT (A) for reconsideration on the merits, after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
Upon review, the bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), found that the CIT (A) failed to verify the additional documents submitted by the assessee, which included detailed submissions on the Rs. 8.6 lakh addition related to gifts received from the assessee’s grandmother, Vajantabai Rajaram Mane, supported by her PAN, affidavit, and Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16. Similar evidence was provided for his uncle, Janardan Rajaram Mane, including bank statements and land revenue records. The CIT (A)’s decision to uphold the AO’s addition without calling for a remand report was deemed legally untenable.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here
In light of the principles of natural justice and fair play, the bench decided to set aside the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The JAO has been directed to consider the additional documents and pass an order in accordance with the law, providing a proper opportunity for a hearing to the assessee. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
