INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GSM MEGA INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 112/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 November 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted relief based on additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that additional evidence was admitted without sufficient cause for not producing it before the AO. The assessee's representative could not controvert the Revenue's submission.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without sufficient cause for its non-production before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

Hearing: 08/12/2021Pronounced: 09/12/2021

O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad dt.30.11.2018 in Appeal No.10578/2017-18/CIT(A)-2 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”).

2.

The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as under : “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in law in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without appreciating the fact that the assessee had no sufficient cause to not produce these evidences before the AO during assessment proceedings ?”

3.

At the outset, the learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee based on the additional evidence produced before him which was not produced before the learned Assessing Officer. It was therefore pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

4.

The learned AR could not controvert the submissions of the learned DR.

5.

After hearing both the parties, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee based on the additional evidence filed by the assessee without obtaining a remand report from the learned AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th December, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →