2017 (2) TMI 1473 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidences by CIT-A - No opportunity of examination verification and seeking AO s comments - denial of natural justice - HELD THAT - Assessee filed large number of additional evidences to support its contentions before the learned CIT(A) for the first time during appellate proceedings - CIT(A) admitted theses additional evidences filed with respect to all the three afore-stated additions made by the AO to the income wherein all the three afore-stated additions stood deleted by CIT(A) on appreciation on merits of these large number of additional evidences filed by the assessee with learned CIT(A) vide his appellate order dated 31-03- 2015. These large number of additional evidences so submitted by the assessee for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were admitted by the CIT(A) without giving and specifying any reasoning and justification as to the limbs under which as contemplated under Rule 46A(a) to (d) of Income-tax Rules 1962 these additional evidences were admitted by him while adjudicating first appeal of the assessee as no justification were given by the assessee for non-filing of these evidences before the learned AO. Further these large number of additional evidences were also not forwarded by learned CIT(A) to the A.O. for giving an AO an opportunity of examination verification and seeking AO s comments as no remand report was called by the learned CIT(A) as contemplated u/r 46A(3) of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The ld. CIT(A) has to record reasons in writing before accepting additional evidences filed before him by the assessee for the first time as contemplated u/r 46A(2) of Incometax Rules 1962 which has not been done by learned CIT(A) in the instant appeal - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions on account of discount and rebate.
2. Deletion of additions on account of depreciation and additional depreciation.
3. Deletion of additions on account of interest on the cost of land purchased.
4. Non-compliance with Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 by CIT(A).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Additions on Account of Discount and Rebate:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?93,77,075/- on account of discount and rebate. The AO observed that the discount and rebate expenses were allowed to customers separately outside the sale bills and were not verifiable due to a lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition based on additional evidence provided by the assessee. However, the Tribunal noted that these additional evidences were admitted by the CIT(A) without justifying their admission under Rule 46A and without seeking a remand report from the AO.

2. Deletion of Additions on Account of Depreciation and Additional Depreciation:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of ?65,04,525/- and ?87,33,201/- on account of depreciation and additional depreciation, respectively. The AO disallowed these claims as the assessee had not commenced manufacturing activities at its new Chennai unit. The CIT(A) deleted these additions after considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not follow the procedure under Rule 46A, as the additional evidence was not forwarded to the AO for verification and no remand report was obtained.

3. Deletion of Additions on Account of Interest on the Cost of Land Purchased:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?9,32,473/- on account of interest on the cost of land purchased. The AO disallowed the interest expense, presuming that the land was purchased using borrowed funds. The CIT(A) deleted this addition based on additional evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence without complying with Rule 46A, as no remand report was sought from the AO.

4. Non-compliance with Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 by CIT(A):
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted a large number of additional evidences without recording reasons in writing as required under Rule 46A(2). Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not forward these additional evidences to the AO for examination and comments, nor did he seek a remand report as mandated by Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal emphasized that these procedural requirements are essential and must be followed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to comply with the requirements of Rule 46A(1) to (3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and to provide an opportunity for the AO to examine the additional evidences and submit a remand report. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.