2016 (12) TMI 120 - HC - Income Tax

Admitting Additional Evidence - Contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Held that - The Tribunal has found that the so called fresh evidence was already on record before the Assessing Officer. Therefore no fresh evidence was filed. This finding is not shown to be perverse in any manner. In the above view, no question of law arises for our consideration, much less any substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Assessment Year 2008-09.
Interpretation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Admissibility of additional evidence by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contested the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09. The main question of law revolved around whether the Tribunal was correct in determining that there was no violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in admitting additional evidence.

2. The crux of the issue was the Revenue's contention that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) improperly considered new evidence presented by the assessee without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to review and challenge it, as mandated by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This rule prohibits the consideration of fresh evidence without the Assessing Officer's involvement.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the alleged additional evidence was actually submitted by the assessee with a covering letter dated 31.12.2010, which the Revenue did not refute. Upon examination of the assessment records, the Tribunal confirmed that the said documents were already part of the records before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's claim of a Rule 46A(3) violation was unfounded, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's grounds.

4. The Tribunal's finding that the so-called fresh evidence was already in existence and part of the assessment records precluded the need for a determination on the legality of admitting new evidence without the Assessing Officer's involvement. This factual determination by the Tribunal, supported by the assessment records, formed the basis for dismissing the appeal, as no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for consideration.

5. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings that the alleged fresh evidence was not new and had been available to the Assessing Officer, thus rendering the Revenue's challenge invalid and not warranting any interference from the Court.