2020 (5) TMI 74 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of natural justice - no opportunity granted by show cause notice - admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules refused - As per assessee no realistic opportunity was given to the assessee to comply with the notice seeking relevant details - HELD THAT - Final show cause notice dated 27-12-2017 issued by the AO sought details and explanations on certain expenses in question expecting the assessee to comply therewith on the very next day i.e. 28-12-2017 and the assessment order was eventually passed on 29-12-2017. It is thus, apparent that the opportunity granted by show cause notice was illusory and an empty formality to complete the assessment. An assessment order passed in contravention of natural justice is a nullity in the eyes of law. Clause-(b) of Rule 46A itself clearly spells out that an assessee would be entitled to produce additional evidence before the CIT(A) where he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the AO. The case of the assessee squarely falls within the circumstances explicitly laid down under Rule 46A. Be it as it may, the powers of CIT(A) is not fettered or circumscribed by Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences. In view of the mandate of the provisions of s.250(4) of the Act also, the situation existing in the case as narrated above, clearly warranted admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). We thus find apparent fallacy in the action of the CIT(A). The order of CIT(A) on the subject matter of appeal is thus set aside and restored to the file of AO for denovo adjudication - Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment validity and natural justice principles
2. Rejection of additional evidence application
3. Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act
4. Short grant of tax credit
5. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act
6. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act
7. Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271B, and 271F of the Act

Assessment validity and natural justice principles:
The appeals were filed against orders of CIT(A)-4 concerning assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The issues were common, so both were heard together. The appellant challenged the assessment's legality, citing violations of natural justice principles by not allowing additional submissions. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The Tribunal found that the AO's actions lacked a fair opportunity for the appellant to comply with requests, rendering the assessment order invalid due to a breach of natural justice.

Rejection of additional evidence application:
The appellant sought admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, but the request was denied. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a fair opportunity to present a case and criticized the CIT(A) for refusing to admit additional evidence, which was crucial for the appellant's defense. The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) should have allowed the additional evidence as per Rule 46A and the provisions of the IT Act.

Disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act:
The appellant contested the disallowance of expenses totaling INR 6,51,68,868 under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO's order was challenged for not considering the appellant's submissions, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not given a realistic opportunity to respond to the notices, resulting in an unjust disallowance. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

Short grant of tax credit:
The AO was criticized for the short grant of tax credit amounting to INR 3,67,318 and for not following the CIT(A)'s directions. The Tribunal directed the AO to reexamine the tax credit issue along with other matters raised by the appellant, providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act:
The appellant challenged the levy of interest under section 234A of the Act, arguing that the due date for AY 2014-15 was extended, and interim stay was granted by the Madras High Court. The Tribunal found flaws in the CIT(A)'s decision and emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors before levying interest. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication.

Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act:
The Tribunal reviewed the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act and found errors in the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the AO's action. The matter was set aside for further examination by the AO to ensure proper adjudication.

Penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271B, and 271F of the Act:
The initiation of penalty proceedings under various sections was contested by the appellant, highlighting compliance with filing requirements within the extended due date. The Tribunal noted the errors in the penalty proceedings and directed a fresh adjudication by the AO, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to address the objections raised.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and fair opportunities for the appellant to present their case.