Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 816 - HC - Income TaxFresh evidences submitted ignored - contravention of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule 1962 - Held that - It would appear from the observations made by the CIT(A) that the interim report furnished by the Assessing Officer did not contain any complaint that the assessee had relied upon any new material. Mr. Bhowmick learned Advocate appearing form the appellant is unable to show that the assessee did in fact rely upon any fresh evidence before the CIT(A). When there is no certainty as regards the assessee having relied upon fresh evidence the question of complying with the provisions of rule 46A(2) would not arise. The learned Tribunal does not appear to have made any mistake because the submissions made by the Revenue before the learned Tribunal did not include even a sentence as regards any new evidence relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A) as would appear from the part of the Tribunal s order quoted above by us. In that view of the matter the question is answered by holding that the order of the learned Tribunal is not erroneous on account of omission to consider any alleged violation of sub-rule (2) of rule 46A.
Issues:
Challenge to judgment dated 24th October, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Kolkata regarding assessment year 2004-05. Question of law: Whether Tribunal justified in passing order without considering fresh evidences submitted by assessee in contravention of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962. Analysis: The appeal before the High Court challenged a judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24th October, 2008, related to the assessment year 2004-05. The key question raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in not considering fresh evidence submitted by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. The Tribunal's order was based on the appeal by the revenue, questioning the genuineness of commission payments made by the assessee. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) did not wait for the final report of the Assessing Officer and allowed the commission without proper justification. The submissions made on behalf of the revenue highlighted concerns about the genuineness of commission payments and the lack of details regarding services rendered by the payees. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not consider the justification for the payments and did not wait for the final report of the Assessing Officer before allowing the commission. However, it was noted that the revenue did not identify any new evidence presented by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had sent the papers submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer to identify any fresh evidence, but the Assessing Officer's interim report did not mention any new material relied upon by the assessee. The High Court observed that without certainty about the assessee relying on fresh evidence, the question of violating Rule 46A(2) did not arise. The Court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in its decision as the revenue's submissions did not mention any new evidence presented by the assessee. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's order was not erroneous in failing to consider an alleged violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46A. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the matter.
|