IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2793/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Piyush D. Modi, Income Tax Officer, 13, Super Arcade Complex, Vs Ward-3, Valia Chokdi, Ankleshwar Bharuch PAN: ADFPM 4071 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 30/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2016 ORDER This is assessees appeal challenging that ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in :- i) Not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. ii) Adding entire amount in bank account, which pertained to Jaggery Trading, as income of assessee. 2. Ld. Counsel for assessee contends that assessee appointed Income-Tax advocate Mr. Kumudbhai J. Modi, who did not appeared before ld. AO. Thereafter, Mrs. Diptiben Patel, Advocate was appointed, who appeared on 08.11.2011 and she was asked for certain information by ld. AO. Mrs. Diptiben Patel on her own informed AO that all amounts credited in bank account belongs to assessees brother. This led to impugned addition which was challenged before ld.CIT(A) along with additional evidence. affidavit in this regard was also filed. 3. Ld. CIT(A), though called for remand report, however, did not admit additional evidence under Rule 46A. contents of affidavit were SMC-ITA No. 2793/Ahd/2013 Shri Piyush D. Modi vs. ITO AY : 2009-10 2 not controverted. refusal of ld. CIT(A) to admit additional evidence is without proper basis and unjustified. Since addition in question has been made without there being fault on part of assessee, in interest of justice, it is prayed that issue may be set aside and restored back to file of AO to adjudicate same afresh after providing assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. Ld. DR, on other hand, supported orders of authorities below. 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused material available on record. I have gone through affidavit filed by assessee before ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence. deposition in affidavit clearly mentioned that said advocates Mr. Kumudbhai J. Modi and Mrs. Diptiben Patel did not represent assessee s case properly. Ld. CIT(A), though called for remand report, however, at end refused to admit additional evidence. Therefore, in my considered view, interest of justice will be served if issues in question are set aside and restored back to file of AO to decide same afresh in accordance with law after providing assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Court on 30th September, 2016 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ahmedabad; Dated 30/09/2016 Biju T. ITAT, Ahmedabad (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) TRUE COPY BY ORDER, Guard file. 6. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. CIT(A) 4. Concerned CIT 3. Respondent. 2. Appellant 1. Copy of Order forwarded to : 3 AY : 2009-10 Shri Piyush D. Modi vs. ITO SMC-ITA No. 2793/Ahd/2013 Piyush D. Modi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Bharuch