9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1074 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits - CIT-A non admitting additional evidence - default of appellate proceedings under Rule 46A of the Income Tax RulesHELD THAT - Although, before the ld. CIT(A), all the documents placed on record by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) had accepted without any objection and in furtherance of his action of having accepted the same, he forwarded it to the A.O. for seeking his remand report. This act of the ld. CIT(A) shown his intention that he had accepted the additional evidences and had no reservations about it but in absence of remand report submitted by the A.O., the ld. CIT(A) has taken contrary view and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting the documents submitted by the assessee which in our view, is not correct. Even the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT had categorically held that technical considerations are pitted against the cause of substantial justice it is the cause of substantial justice that must prevail. Therefore, in view of the above proposition as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and also keeping in view the principles laid down in the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd 2011 (2) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT . We allow both these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and admit the documents placed on record by the assessee as additional evidences. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we have admitted the additional evidences, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the A.O. for the deciding the issue afresh. This appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Issues:
Challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A, not adjudicating the issue on merits, confirming the addition of unexplained cash deposits, contract receipts, and upholding additions without passing a speaking order. Issue 1: Admissibility of Additional Evidence The assessee appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. The assessee argued that the authorized representative failed to provide necessary documents during assessment proceedings, leading to the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the documents to the A.O. for remand report, which was not submitted. The assessee contended that the non-submission of the report disadvantaged him. The ITAT held that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without admitting the documents, citing the cause of substantial justice over technical considerations. Relying on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance, the ITAT allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the A.O. for fresh consideration. Issue 2: Merits of the Case The A.O. had made additions to the assessee's income due to unexplained cash deposits and contract receipts. The ld. CIT(A) upheld these additions without passing a speaking order, prompting the assessee to appeal. The ITAT noted that the A.O. added amounts as unexplained deposits due to lack of supporting documents. The assessee submitted additional evidence during the appeal, but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering these documents. The ITAT found the ld. CIT(A)'s decision unfair, considering the circumstances and legal principles favoring substantial justice. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the case back to the A.O. for a fresh decision after admitting the additional evidence. Conclusion The ITAT allowed the appeal on the grounds of admissibility of additional evidence and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the A.O. The ITAT directed the A.O. to reconsider the matter on merits, providing the assessee with a fair opportunity for a hearing. The ITAT emphasized the importance of substantial justice and legal precedents in admitting additional evidence for a just resolution.
|
