ITO, WARD-47(4), NEW DELHI vs. NARENDRA JAIN, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4905/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had acted in accordance with the previous ITAT directions by examining the additional evidence and obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds regarding the admission of additional evidence were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition after admitting additional evidence from the assessee. The ITAT had previously remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for examination of these additional evidences.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without strictly following Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, especially after a previous remand by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Kul BharatDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 25.10Pronounced: 31.10.2022

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 27.04.2018.

2.

Following revised grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee in 2nd round of appeal, on the directions of Hon'ble ITAT, without following the requirement of rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which were required to be strictly followed whereby additional evidence must be furnished to Assessing Officer for verification and for submission of his comments before admitting such additional evidence, as held by jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com 27 which was binding on CIT(A).

2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by admitting additional evidence without furnishing the same to the Assessing Officer for his comments, which was not done by Ld. CIT(A) in 2nd round and thus his order was in contravention of decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. E.D. Benny (2015) 62 taxmann.com 302.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,80,23,832/- made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) in 1st round of appeal.

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the procedure prescribed under Rules 46A(3) even when it is a settled position of law that once assessee invokes Rule 46A and prays for admission of additional evidences before ld. CIT(A), the procedure prescribed in said rules has to be scrupulously followed.”

3.

The assessee is running a proprietorship concern with the name of M/s Micky Automobiles which is engaged in the business of Wholesale Trading of Tractor parts. The assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs.6,76,730/-.

4.

The assessment in this case has been completed on 26.03.2015 and the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the additions made which have been adjudicated by order dated 31.10.2016. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2017 referred the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with directions to examine the additional evidences filed before the Tribunal. Following the directions of the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) considered the additional evidences and duly a remand report has been sought from the Assessing Officer.

After receipt of the remand report and examining the facts, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal against the order raising the grounds of admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee against the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

6.

From the record and the order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2017, we find that the additional evidences have been admitted by the Tribunal and have been remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to examine the additional evidences and to take a decision in accordance with law. The ld. CIT(A) fairly acted in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal and adjudicated the matter after an independent inquiry and also after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Hence, the issue of admitting of additional evidences under Rule 46A(3) raised by the revenue in this appeal is no more res integra and hence liable to be dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31/10/2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →