9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1258 - HC - Income TaxAdmission of additional evidence - Held that - Tribunal that the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act as the assessee did not cooperate in assessment proceedings. On account of sickness of the assessee, he wanted to file additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules before the CIT(A). In his affidavit dated 04.03.2010, the assessee had even stated that he had undergone heart surgery. In the first week of December, 2009, he got himself examined from the hospital at Mohali where the doctors advised him bed rest. In view of this factual position books of account, bills/vouchers etc could not be produced by the assessee. It has been recorded by the Tribunal that no doubt the assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer in completion of the assessment proceedings and that the books of account etc were not produced inspite of opportunity but the said evidence might have been relevant for the calculation of the real income of the assessee. The Tribunal keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case rightly directed the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence and decide the case afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
Issues:
1. Admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. Assessment of real income of the assessee. 3. Cooperation of the assessee with the Assessing Officer. 4. Application under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Interpretation of Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 6. Exercise of discretion by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appellant-revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Rules. The ITA had noted that the assessment was completed under Section 144 as the assessee did not cooperate. The Tribunal found that the evidence might be relevant for calculating the real income and directed the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence and decide the case afresh, ensuring natural justice despite the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee during assessment proceedings. 2. The Tribunal emphasized that while the assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing Officer, the real income had to be assessed in the delivery of justice, necessitating the admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of the evidence for calculating the real income and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's failure to produce books of account and vouchers during assessment proceedings despite several opportunities. The Tribunal acknowledged the reasons provided by the assessee, such as health issues, for not producing the evidence. Although the assessee's lack of cooperation was noted, the Tribunal stressed the importance of considering all relevant evidence to determine the real income of the assessee. 4. The Tribunal's direction for admitting additional evidence was supported by the principle of substantial justice, ensuring that the assessee had a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence for the assessment of real income. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the non-cooperation of the assessee with the need to assess the real income accurately, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice in the assessment process. 5. The Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 46A of the Rules focused on the relevance of the additional evidence in determining the real income of the assessee. Despite the assessee's failure to cooperate fully with the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal considered the importance of the evidence for a fair assessment, leading to the direction for admitting additional evidence and conducting a fresh assessment to ensure justice in the case. 6. The Tribunal's decision to direct the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence was based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case, highlighting the need to consider all relevant evidence for assessing the real income of the assessee. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion in admitting additional evidence aimed to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the assessment proceedings, despite the non-cooperative behavior of the assessee.
|
