S. Sandhya for the Assessee. M.N. Murthy Naik for the Revenue.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad in appeal No. 438/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, dated 25/01/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) r.w.s 250(6) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for AY 2014-15.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:

“1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,33,624/- made u/s 68 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).

3) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 80C (of Income Tax Act, 1961)

4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the income by an amount of Rs.31,76,376/-

5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the provisions of Sec.69A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) are applicable to the amount of Rs.31,76,376/- and that the same is required to be added to the income admitted.

6) Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, carrying on tent house business, filed his return of income manually for the AY 2014 -15 on 16/07/2014 admitting an income of Rs. 2,69,700/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, assessment was completed U/s. 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) vide order dated 29/12/2016 wherein the Ld. AO disallowed the claim U/s.80C (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for Rs. 75,840/- and further made addition U/s. 68 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) towards unexplained cash deposited in the SB Account amounting to Rs. 25,33,624/-.

4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not able to produce sufficient evidence to justify his claim which resulted in the addition and was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). the Ld. AR further pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided before the Ld. AO in order to furnish the evidence gathered by the assessee to justify his case. It was further submitted that the assessee is in acute financial crunch. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently argued by stating that number of opportunities were provided by the Ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A), however, the assessee failed to satisfy the queries raised by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It was therefore requested that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. It is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that proper opportunities were provided to the assessee. In this situation, the prayer of the Ld. AR does not have much merits. However, considering the financial strain of the assessee and the nature of additions made, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration. I also hereby direct the assessee and his AR to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities failing which the ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on record.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.

Pronounced in the open court on 05th March, 2020