9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is bad in law and on facts. 1.2. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in completing the proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity to the Appellant to furnish additional submissions and documents which are pertinent to the additions made. thereby rendering the impugned order to be bad in law. 2. Application for additional evidence not accepted 2.1, The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts by not considering the Appellant's application for additional evidence as per Rule 46A(1)(d) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. Specifically, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that: (a) Appellant failed to furnish the details during the course of assessment proceedings in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) Appellant has not incurred the expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 4. Short grant of credit in respect of tax deducted at source 4.1. The Assessing Officer has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in granting short credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 3.67,318. 4 2. The Assessing Officer has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in not following the directions of the CIT(Appeals) to grant appropriate tax credit in the order giving effect dated March 26, 2019 to the order of the CIT(Appeals) under section 250 of the Act. 5. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 5 The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and in the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71 F of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had filed return of income and tax audit report for AY 2014-15 within the extended due date of November 30, 2014. 9. Relief 9.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto. 9.2. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal. 4. The assessee in the captioned appeals has raised several grounds assailing the order of CIT(A) for disposal of the appeal of the assessee. However, it is noticed that one of the substantive grounds rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the order of the AO is vitiated from the violation of principles of natural justice. 5.2 It was pointed out that the matter was carried to the CIT(A) wherein, the relevant details were filed on these issues and leave of the CIT(A) was sought for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) however, rejected the prayer of the assessee for admission of additional evidences placed before it. It was thus, contended that the order of the AO as well as the CIT(A) is vitiated owing to blatant transgression of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand, relied upon the order of lower authorities, but however, fairly voiced his concurrence with the proposal on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perceive that any superior authority expected to rectify such apparent violation in granting due opportunity would refuse to admit the additional evidences moved before him. Needless to say that the spirit Rule 46A of IT Rules, enabling the assessee to place additional evidences before the CIT(A) are founded on the doctrine of legitimate expectations and principles of natural justice. It is indeed the sacrosanct obligation of the first appellate authority to have ensured that an effective opportunity is granted to an assessee for presenting his case. This apart, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
