9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt appeal is the validity in law of the admission of additional evidences by the learned CIT(A), being ostensibly in contravention of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules' hereinafter). This is the second ground before the Tribunal. In the first round (in ITA No. 6185/Mum/E/2009 dated 26.8.2011), the issue before the tribunal was the maintainability of the assessee's appeal before the first appellate authority, which, being filed beyond time, had been held as incompetent by the said authority. The tribunal found that the assessee, an illiterate person, was totally dependent on his counsel, who had misguided him. It was therefore a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :- (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.3.2006 and 29.12.2006 as per the Assessing Officer and the assessee respectively. As such, the same reasons that led to the condonation of the delay of over a year in preferring an appeal before the first appellate authority in the first round, would, in our view, constitute valid grounds for non-furnishing the said details and evidences before the AO in the assessment proceedings, satisfying the condition of r.46A(c). The ld. CIT(A) was accordingly justified in admitting the additional evidences adduced before him by the assessee. We, in so deciding, derive support from the very same decisions, cited supra by us with regard to the mandatory nature of r. 46A; it being rather under the circumstances incumbent on the ld. CIT(A)) to seek the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
