(a) The assessee filed return of income which was picked up for scrutiny where he was required to explain the deposits in his saving bank account. The AO made additions on account of unexplained cash deposits.
(b) The CIA (A) upheld the addition made by AO without considering fresh evidences filed by assessee. Evidences were considered as not admissible by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since as per record, no application seeking admission of fresh evidences under rule 46A was filed. ITAT held as under:
(1) The tax so collected on the foundation of the ignorances of a 'tax illiterate tax payer' could not be termed to be a collection of either 'just' nor 'due' taxes collected by the State in accordance with law. The assessee represented by an equally ignorant counsel, should have been appropriately guided by the First Appellate Authority. The fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising his discretion refused to admit evidence inspite of sufficient cause being shown as a matter of record was unwarranted and arbitrary.
(2) Since in the facts of the instant case due to his wife's illness the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidences in support of his claim, the impugned order was set aside and the issue to be restored back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to permit the assessee to produce the evidences in support of his claim.