Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 747 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance under the head cash rebate - admission of addition evidence - denial of natural justice - Held that - Additional evidences were not sent by the ld. CIT(A) for examination by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we are of the view that it is a violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, as without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine these additional evidences, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in respect of cash rebate. Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice and fair play, we think it appropriate that the said issue should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules regarding submission of additional evidences during appellate proceedings. Analysis: The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2013-14 and challenges an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming a disallowance of cash rebate made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted additional evidences during the appellate proceedings, which were acknowledged by the Ld. CIT(A) but not sent to the Assessing Officer for verification, leading to a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee cited illness of the Authorized Representative as a reason for not submitting the evidences earlier. The Revenue objected to the additional evidences and the doctor's certificate provided, questioning its relevance due to the timing of the illness. The Tribunal noted the violation of Rule 46A, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine additional evidences. Citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal highlighted the need for strict compliance with Rule 46A to ensure fair play and natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to actively participate in the assessment proceedings and submit necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the situation, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination of the additional evidences in compliance with Rule 46A.
|