2020 (3) TMI 399 - HC - Income Tax

Procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3) - according to the tribunal the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was flawed for not giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to deal with the additional evidence as provided in Rule 46A(3) - HELD THAT - A proper order would have been to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to rehear and re-determine the appeal complying with Rule 46A(2) and (3). This, in our opinion, gives rise to a substantial question of law. We think that it would be proper if the said impugned order of the tribunal is modified by directing that the entire matter be remanded to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the same complying with the procedural formalities under Rule 46A(2) and (3) within four months of communication of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 leading to dismissal of appeal/cross objection by the tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Procedural Violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3):
The High Court addressed the issue of procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The tribunal observed a flaw in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for not providing an opportunity to the assessing officer to deal with the additional evidence as mandated under Rule 46A(3). Due to this violation, the tribunal dismissed the appeal/cross objection before it. The Court acknowledged that this procedural error raised a substantial question of law.

2. Remand to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):
The High Court determined that the appropriate course of action would have been to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a rehearing and redetermination of the appeal while ensuring compliance with Rule 46A(2) and (3). Therefore, the Court modified the impugned order of the tribunal by directing that the entire matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision within four months of the communication of the Court's order.

3. Decision and Disposal of Appeals:
Consequently, the High Court issued an order to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a proper determination in accordance with the procedural formalities under Rule 46A(2) and (3). The appeal (ITAT No. 173 of 2019) and the connected stay application (GA No. 2457 of 2019) were disposed of based on this order, ensuring that the matter is appropriately reconsidered by the competent authority.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily focused on rectifying the procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision within a specified timeframe, thereby ensuring compliance with the legal provisions and safeguarding the rights of the parties involved in the appeal process.