JAI MATADI ASSOCIATES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO,WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 August 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce all necessary evidence before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased JCB machinery for excavation but failed to explain the source of purchase or provide evidence to the AO. Evidence was produced before the CIT(A) without a proper application under Rule 46A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should have considered evidence produced without a Rule 46A application, and if the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 27/08/2024Pronounced: 27/08/2024

O R D E R

Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 03/06/2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065345750(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee has purchased machineries in the form of JCB for excavation purpose in mines. The assessee has neither explained the source of purchase nor produced the evidences before the AO. It was the submission that on appeal, the assessee had produced the evidences before the ld. CIT(A) with his submissions dated 24.05.2024. It was the submission that the purchase invoices and registration certificate of the JCB machinery were admittedly fresh evidence but no application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules has 2 been filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has not considered such evidences and confirmed the assessment order. It was the prayer that if the issues are restored to the file of ld. AO, the assessee will be able to produce all the evidences before the AO for readjudication. 3. In reply, ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the assessee has produced all the evidences in the appellate proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has produced these evidences without the necessary application under Rule 46A. The evidences have not been produced before the AO but produced for the first time before the ld. CIT(A), thus, require an application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. This being so, in the interest of justice, as it is noticed that the assessee has got the evidences to explain the source of purchase of machineries, therefore, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2024. (MANISH AGARWAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 27/08/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →