INCOME TAX OFFICER, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI vs. ARROWLINE ORGANIC PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF

ITA 2624/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the tribunal by the Revenue. In its affidavit the Revenue has pleaded that the Ld.AO was ceased with pressing judicial matters contributing to the impugned delay and that the same was neither willful nor wanton. The Revenue submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the Revenue and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Ac4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which granted partial relief to the assessee regarding an addition of Rs.15,78,51,475/- made by the AO under Section 68 for unconfirmed share capital. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by considering new evidence submitted by the assessee without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it.

Held

The Tribunal found prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 46A, as new evidences were submitted before the CIT(A) without affording the AO an opportunity to examine them. Since the assessee did not appear, indicating a lack of interest, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the order of the AO.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in granting partial relief by accepting new evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, thereby violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act.

Sections Cited

68, Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 11.06.2025

(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.Nandha Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1067271334(1) dated 02.08.2024, of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 8 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal by the Revenue. In its affidavit the Revenue has pleaded that the Ld.AO was ceased with pressing judicial matters contributing to the impugned delay and that the same was neither willful nor wanton. The Revenue submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the Revenue and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 The assessee was called absent on the date of hearing. 4.0 The Ld. DR argued that the order of Ld.AO is based upon correct understanding of the facts of the case. It was submitted that evidences qua satisfaction of provisions of section 68 were not provided to the Ld.AO,in full as result of which he made an addition of Rs.15,78,51,475/-. It was argued that the part-relief accorded by the Ld.CIT(A) of Rs.7,13,55,000/- qua addition u/s 68 was erroneous and excessive in as much as it was based upon consideration of documents filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and which were not filed by the Ld.AO. It was accordingly requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of Ld.AO be sustained.

Page - 2 - of 4 5.0 We have noted the arguments of the Ld.DR in the light of material available on records. The assessee was called absent in the case. Revenue has, inter-alia, contended violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Act. We have noted from para 12 & 13 of the Ld.AO’s order that evidences in respect of unconfirmed share capital of Rs.15,78,51,475/- was not filed by the assessee. We have also noted that on page 11 of his order the Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assesse was requested to file details in support of the share capital accretion of Rs.15,78,51,475/- however it provided only evidence for Rs.7,13,55,000/. We have noted that the case thus becomes a matter where evidences requisitioned by the Ld.AO were not provided by the assessee but were submitted before the Ld.First Appellate Authority and that the appellate authority considered the same for relief without affording the Ld.AO an opportunity of examining the same. Thus, violation of Rule 46A is prima-facie evident in the case. The assessee by its non-appearance has alluded that it is not interested in prosecuting its matter. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore that of the Ld.AO. All the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed.