9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 558 - AT - Income TaxNon-compliance of Rule 46A of I.T.Rules by CIT-A before deleting the addition u/s 68 - CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences/enclosures without confronting the same to the AO and without obtaining comments/remand report from the AO - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences/enclosures at Sl. No.1 to 8 stated at page 10 of the impugned order without confronting the same to the AO and without obtaining comments/remand report from the AO on the said additional enclosures. Therefore, we hold that the ld CIT(A) has admitted and considered the additional evidences without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 46A of I.T.Rules and hence, the ld CIT(A) order granting relief to the assessee cannot be held as sustainable and valid as per mandatory provision Rule 46A of I.T.Rules. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file to the first appellate stage with the direction that he should allow proper opportunity of hearing to the AO as well as to the assessee and re-decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Ground No.1 of additional ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional grounds of appeal. 2. Compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Admission and consideration of new evidence by the CIT(A). Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal: The revenue sought the admission of additional grounds of appeal, specifically questioning whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal on merit without addressing the assessee's application under Rule 46A. The revenue argued that this was a legal issue that did not require fresh investigation into facts, as the facts were already on record. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC (229 ITR 383), admitted the additional grounds for adjudication, emphasizing that legal grounds based on existing records should be considered. 2. Compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: The revenue contended that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting and considering new evidence (enclosures listed at Sl. No. 1 to 8) without calling for a remand report or comments from the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that Rule 46A mandates that any new evidence must be confronted to the AO, who should be given an opportunity to examine and verify the evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with this mandatory provision, as the additional evidence was not presented during the assessment proceedings and was admitted without proper procedure. 3. Admission and Consideration of New Evidence by the CIT(A): The Tribunal scrutinized the CIT(A)'s actions in admitting new evidence without following the procedural requirements of Rule 46A. It was highlighted that the CIT(A) did not direct the assessee to produce the documents; instead, the assessee submitted them voluntarily during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that for any additional evidence to be considered, the CIT(A) must record reasons for its admission in writing and allow the AO to examine and rebut the evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) did not adhere to these requirements, rendering the order unsustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the first appellate stage, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity for the AO and the assessee to be heard and to re-decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law. Consequently, the additional grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, and other grounds were deemed academic and infructuous. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 10/02/2020.
|
