RAMBABBOO GUPTA,UTTARPRADESH vs. ITO-2(4), BADAUN-2, UTTARPRADESH

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to NFAC) dated 24.12.2021 for assessment year 2019-20.

That ld. CIT (Appeals) is unjustified while not allowing our application under rule 46A for additional evidence the case was processed by CPC and there is no provision in return to submit the receipt of Mandi Samiti together with return or after filing of return, no evidence can be filed with the return. It seems that ld. CIT (Appeals) has not taken cognigence of this fact that no evidence can be enclose or furnished to CPC either with the return or otherwise during assessment proceedings. “

In spite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. This appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR on merits.

The primary contention of the assessee in its appeal is that the ld. CIT (Appeals) is not justified in not admitting the additional evidence and the application filed under Rule 46A. It is the contention of the assessee that there is no provision in the return of income to submit the receipts of Mandi Samiti along with the return or after filing of return since the return was processed only by CPC. It is the contention of the assessee that this fact is over-looked by the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidences was rejected.

I have perused the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and observe that the primary application filed under Rule 46A for admitting the additional evidence was rejected on the ground that the Mandi Samiti receipt was not enclosed along with the return of 2 income. It is also observed that the return was processed by the CPC and it was not taken up for scrutiny assessment. There was no opportunity to the assessee to file the evidences before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the contentions raised by the assessee and on hearing the ld. DR, I am of the view that this appeal should go back to the ld. CIT (Appeals) for adjudicating the issue on merits rather than going into the technicality for rejecting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) to decide the issue in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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