9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 130 - AT - Income TaxAdmissibility of Additional Evidences / Materials filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - When an assessee fails to avail of reasonable opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings; the assessee must pass the test of Rule 46A of I.T Rules, 1962 before the CIT(A) admits or accepts Additional Evidences or Materials during appellate proceedings before CIT(A). The crucial issue in the appeal before us is the admissibility of Additional Evidences / Materials filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A); and this issue cannot be decided by Assessing Officer, an authority below the CIT(A). When the issue of admissibility of Additional Evidences / Materials filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) is crucial; it will be improper and inappropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. We hereby set aside the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.06.2012 of Ld. CIT(A) and restore all disputed matters to the file of the CIT(A), with the direction to pass fresh order. If the Ld. CIT(A) decides to admit Additional Evidences, he should clearly state the specific clause(s) of Rule 46A(1) of I.T. Rules that would apply; while recording the reasons under Rule 46A(2) of I.T. Rules. Further, if the Ld. CIT(A) decides to admit Additional Evidences, reasonable opportunity prescribed under Rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules must be provided by the CIT(A) to the AO. Even if Ld. CIT(A) accepts the Additional Evidences / Materials under Rule 46A(4) of I.T. Rules, even then reasonable opportunities must be provided by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to examine such Additional Evidences / Materials and to produce any evidence or document in rebuttal of Additional Evidences / Materials submitted or produced by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). By way of abundant caution, we expressly clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the various quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 24.04.2015 which are under dispute in the present appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A) 2. Deletion of Speculation Loss Addition 3. Deletion of Interest Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) 4. Deletion of Addition under Section 68 5. Deletion of Addition under Section 69 6. Reduction of Disallowance on Personal Expenses 7. General Error in CIT(A)'s Order Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A): The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) did not clarify whether the evidence was admitted under Rule 46A(1) or Rule 46A(4). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to confront the Assessing Officer (AO) with the additional evidence and did not provide the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the evidence. This omission violated the principles of natural justice, making the appellate order unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 46A requires strict compliance, and any additional evidence must be admitted following the prescribed procedure, ensuring the AO is given a reasonable opportunity to respond. 2. Deletion of Speculation Loss Addition: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?5,44,314/- made by the AO as a speculation loss under Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of this deletion but noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a detailed explanation of how the additional evidence influenced this decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. 3. Deletion of Interest Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii): The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ?43,98,987/- made by the AO under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest on loans and advances. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed explanation or discuss the specific additional evidence that influenced this decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. 4. Deletion of Addition under Section 68: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?71,95,000/- made by the AO under Section 68, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed explanation or discuss the specific additional evidence that influenced this decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. 5. Deletion of Addition under Section 69: The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?43,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 69 for unexplained investment. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed explanation or discuss the specific additional evidence that influenced this decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. 6. Reduction of Disallowance on Personal Expenses: The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance made under the head telephone expenses of ?1,24,603/- and car expenses of ?3,95,844/- from 20% to 10%. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed explanation or discuss the specific additional evidence that influenced this decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence. 7. General Error in CIT(A)'s Order: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked detailed reasoning for the decisions made. The order did not comply with the principles of natural justice as it failed to provide the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to respond. Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the quantum additions made by the AO.
|
