IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Shri. Prashant Singh,
No.A 603, Celestial Green, No.6,
Old Madras Road, Opp. RMZ Infinity,
Bangalore -560 093 .. Appellant
PAN : ACCPS0141A
Ward ? 7(4), Bangalore .. Respondent
Assessee by : Shri. Mallaharao, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri. Saravanan. B, JCIT
Heard on : 21.03.2015
Pronounced on : 30.03.2015
O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
In this appeal filed by assessee directed against an order
dt.26.10.2013 of CIT (A) (LTU), Bangalore, it has altogether raised eight
grounds of which 1, 6 and 8 are general and seven is consequential needing
no specific adjudication.
ITA.133/Bang/2015 Page – 2
02. Vide its grounds 2 to 5, grievance raised by the assessee is that loans
totaling to Rs.4,75,000/- claimed to have been received by the assessee
from one M/s. Tisavi and Mr. Girish Parvatikar, were not accepted by the
03. Facts apropos are that assessee engaged in the business of loan
servicing for Deutsche Bank and running a marketing agency of Hutchison
Essar had filed its return for the impugned assessment year declaring
income of Rs.5,57,060/-. During the course of assessment proceedings it
was noted by the AO that assessee had introduced additional capital of
Rs.17,26,902/- during the relevant previous year which inter alia included
the following amounts :
As per the AO assessee could not explain the source for the above credits
and an addition of Rs.4,75,000/- was made.
04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeal before the CIT (A).
Explanation of the assessee was that the sum of Rs.4,75,000/- stood
ITA.133/Bang/2015 Page – 3
explained as under :
05. CIT (A) observed that assessee could not file confirmations from
M/s. Tisavi and Mr. Girish Parvatikar, except for a copy of the ledger
account in assessee’s name appearing in the books of M/s. Tisavi and a
copy of bank account with ICICI bank. Though assessee gave the PAN of
M/s. Tisavi which was a proprietorship concern of one Salon Bhatia, as
well as the PAN of Girish Parvatikar, CIT (A) noted that assessee was
unable to produce the confirmations from the said parties. However with
regard to the sum of Rs.60,000/- shown as transfer from HDFC Bank
account, CIT (A) noted that it had come from assessee’s wife who was an
employee with M/s. Texas Instruments in the senior management cadre.
Thus he confirmed the addition except for the sum of Rs.60,000/-,
06. Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assailing the order of lower
authorities submitted that it could not obtain the confirmation of the M/s.
Tisavi and Mr. Girish Parvatikar, due to reasons beyond its control. As per
ITA.133/Bang/2015 Page – 4
the Ld. AR assessee was of the impression that these documents were
available and filed. Ld. AR sought admission of additional evidence in the
form of confirmation letters and copy of ledger accounts of M/s. Tisavi. An
application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963, was also filed. According
to him, if the additional evidence was not considered, genuine loans taken
by the assessee would be considered as his income.
7. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that assessee was unable to show as to
why he could not file confirmation letters before the lower authorities.
According to the Ld. DR these additions were justified.
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
Assessee had explained that the sum of Rs.3,15,000/- had come from M/s.
Tisavi and Rs.1 lakh had come from Girish Parvatikar. Assessee had
indeed produced some evidence in the form of ICICI bank account of
Girish Parvatikar and ledger copy of the assessee appearing in the books of
M/s. Tisavi before the CIT (A). CIT (A) had not accepted these because
the assessee was unable to produce confirmations from the said parties and
also for the reason that the bank account of Girish Parvatikar did not have
significant balances therein. Before us assessee pleads for admission of
additional evidence in the form of confirmation letters of the concerned
ITA.133/Bang/2015 Page – 5
parties. We are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, matter requires
a fresh look by the AO. Assessee in our opinion, should be given one more
chance for explaining the loans from M/s. Tisavi and Mr. Girish Parvatikar.
We therefore set aside the orders of lower authorities and remit these issues
back to the file of AO for consideration afresh as per law. Assessee shall be
given fair opportunity for filing the details and substantiating its
9. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30 day of March, 2016.
(VIJAY PAL RAO) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER