IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” PANAJI BENCH BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y. 2018-19 )

Rama laxman Dhamanekar, Vs DCIT-Central circle, . Saraf Colony, At Hunchenatti,PO-Piranwadi, Khanaput, Tilakwari, Belgaum-590014, Karnataka. Belagavi--590001, Karnataka.

PAN No. AQQPD0688M .

Appellant) Respondent (अपीलार्थी/ (प्रत्यर्थी/ )

Assessee by Shri.Pramod .Y.Vaidya.AR.

Revenue by Shri.Satish M. CIT DR.

सुनवाई की

तारीख/Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/

ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the CIT (A)-2 Panaji passed u/sec 153C and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition u/sec69A of the Act and interest on fixed deposits made by the Assessing Officer.

2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR brought to the knowledge of the bench, that there is a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assesse has filed the affidavit for condonation of delay. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections.

Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is working in the army and derives income from salary. The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2018-19 on 07-07--2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.5,15,560/-. Whereas the Assessing Officer (A.O) in the case of search u/sec132 of the Act in the case of Shri Gopal Annapa Sambhaji find certain information of the assessee pertaining to the Fixed deposits with the Shri.Kalika Daivadnya credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Belgaum and notice u/sec153C of the Act was issued on the assessee and the assessee has filed the return of income on 20-03- 2021 disclosing a total income of Rs.5,15,600/- Subsequently notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued calling for the details in respect of fixed deposits and sources. Further the Ld.AR of the assesse appeared from time to time and submitted the information. Whereas the assessing officer dealt on the details, statements and the information and was not satisfied with the explanations and made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/sec69A of the Act and similarly made addition of interest income of Rs.35,500/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.10,50,660/- and passed the order u/sec 153C of the Act dated 15.04.2021.

4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO but has confirmed the action of the assessing officer and dismissed the assesse appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the facts and submissions of the assessee in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not examined by the lower authorities and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

6. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the A.O. as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assesse is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with SBI bank statement, summary of cash withdrawls and deposits,RTC extract of agricultural land substantiating the sources of fixed deposits placed at S.no.9 to 51 of the paper book which could not be submitted bef