9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 46A such a requirement is clearly spelt out. It is such a situation that the learned Tribunal has held that the order of the first appellate authority was contrary to the provisions of rule 46A(3) of the Rules. Reading the provisions of the aforesaid sub-rule (3) of rule 46A which are clear and unambiguous and, do not admit any contrary view, we do not see as to how any infirmity can be found in the order of the learned Tribunal. – Order of ITAT maintained. - 1 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2009 - RANJAN GOGOI and HRISHIKESH ROY JJ. S. Chetia and A. Goyal for the appellant. U. Bhuyan for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RANJAN GOGOI J. - Heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-rule (3) of rule 46A, came to the conclusion that the fresh evidence introduced by the assessee was without an opportunity to the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned first appellate authority, leading to the order dated March 17, 2005, was in violation of the provisions of rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal remanded the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction that he should allow the Assessing Officer an opportunity on the fresh evidence introduced by the assessee and, thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law. 5. We have perused the order of the learned Tribunal under challenge in the appeal. We have also read and considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Reading the aforesaid judgment, we find that in the said case the Bombay High Court was considering the scope and ambit of the power under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules in a situation where additional evidence sought to be introduced by the assessee was refused. The aforesaid decision, therefore, cannot have any application to the present case. 8. In the present case, admittedly additional evidence was sought to be introduced by the assessee before the first appellate authority which was so permitted. Thereafter, such additional materials were considered by the first appellate authority in coming to a conclusion different from what was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment made under section 144 of the Act. No oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
