2016 (8) TMI 1173 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence - Held that - We find that it is an undisputed fact that assessment in this case has been completed u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee did not cooperate in assessment proceedings. It is also a fact that before learned CIT(A) the reason for non appearance before the Assessing Officer was explained to be sickness of assessee and assessee wanted to file additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules. No doubt assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer in completion of assessment proceedings but the fact remains that in the delivery of justice the real income of assessee has to be assessed and that too after hearing the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has not commented upon the nature of evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Act. Such evidence might have been relevant for the calculation of real income of the assessee, therefore, in view of the substantial justice, we direct the learned CIT(A) to admit additional evidence and decide the case afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal
- Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46 of the I.T. Rules
- Assessment completed under section 144 of the Act
- Direction to admit additional evidence and fresh adjudication by learned CIT(A)

Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appeal was initially dismissed due to defects not being rectified within the stipulated period, but later recalled. The appellant sought condonation of delay of 265 days, attributing it to an oversight in the counsel's office. The delay was condoned as the appellant was not deemed negligent, and the learned AR proceeded with arguments with no objection from the learned DR.

Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46 of the I.T. Rules:
The Assessing Officer had passed the order under section 144 of the Act, and the learned CIT(A) had refused to admit additional evidence under Rule 46 of the I.T. Rules. The appellant requested another opportunity to present the case, with the learned DR agreeing to remit the case back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not cooperate in assessment proceedings, but emphasized the need to assess the real income of the assessee after hearing them. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A) to admit additional evidence and decide the case afresh, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Assessment Completed under Section 144 of the Act:
The assessment in this case had been completed under section 144 of the Act as the assessee did not cooperate in the proceedings. The appellant's reasons for non-appearance were attributed to sickness, and a desire to file additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules. However, the learned CIT(A) did not admit the evidence initially. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering relevant evidence for the accurate assessment of the assessee's real income, directing the learned CIT(A) to reevaluate the case after admitting the additional evidence.

Direction to Admit Additional Evidence and Fresh Adjudication by Learned CIT(A):
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the necessity of assessing the real income of the assessee and ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The order directed the learned CIT(A) to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act and conduct a fresh adjudication, underscoring the importance of substantial justice in the assessment process.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46 of the I.T. Rules, completion of assessment under section 144 of the Act, and the direction to admit additional evidence for a fresh adjudication by the learned CIT(A) to ensure substantial justice and accurate assessment of the assessee's real income.