M/S R & R ARTS vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7

PDF · subscribers
ITA/98/2018HC DelhiDLHC01013332201830 January 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the orders of the ITAT merely remitted the matter for further consideration. The Court opined that the discretion available under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act is wide and permits parties, including the Revenue, to produce additional evidence on specified grounds. In this context, the Court found no question of law arising from the ITAT's order. It was stated that the contentions of the parties would be considered on the merits of the additional evidence adduced by the Revenue, which was now being remitted to the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s R & R Arts, has appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had remitted the matter back for consideration in light of additional evidence sought to be produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the ITAT's decision to permit additional evidence was erroneous, as no grounds were made out to justify the exercise of discretion, especially considering the CIT(A)'s analysis. The Revenue, represented by the ACIT, Central Circle-7, supported the ITAT's order. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Delhi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in remitting the matter for consideration of additional evidence under Rule 46A, when no sufficient grounds were made out for the exercise of such discretion, contrary to the findings of the CIT(A)? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation and application of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT's order permitting additional evidence was unwarranted and erroneous. They contended that the circumstances and the analysis by the CIT(A) did not justify the exercise of discretion under Rule 46A. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Sr. Standing Counsel, supported the ITAT's order. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond supporting the ITAT's decision to remit the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 98/2018 and CM APPL. 3539/2018

M/S R & R ARTS

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Advocates.

versus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R %

30.01.2018

The assessee urges that the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) remitting the matter for consideration in the light of the additional evidences under Rule 46A, are erroneous. It is urged that no ground was made out to permit the additional evidences having regard to the overall circumstances as well as the analysis conducted by the CIT(A), the exercise of discretion was unwarranted. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders have merely remitted the matter. The discretion under Rule 46A of the Act is wide and permits to the Revenue – all for that matter, the other party, to produce additional evidence on specified grounds. ITA 98/2018

Page 1 of 2

In these circumstances, no question of law arises. It goes without saying that the contentions of the parties would be considered on merits of the additional evidences adduced by the Revenue, which is now being remitted to the CIT(A). The appeal is dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

A. K. CHAWLA, J JANUARY 30, 2018 nn

ITA 98/2018

Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →