Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) but it was rejected for not filing an application under Rule 46A. The assessee claimed this omission was inadvertent. The addition was made by the AO due to cash deposit of Rs.23,08,000/- being treated as unexplained.
Held
The Tribunal held that rejecting evidence solely for non-reference to Rule 46A is not a strong ground, as substance should prevail over form. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence on the technical ground of non-compliance with Rule 46A without considering the merits of the evidence.
Sections Cited
46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2012-13 Munireddy Prakashreddy, Income Tax Officer, No.1/16, Madivalam, Nallur Post, Ward-1, Hosur, Krishnagiri Dist. Hosur. Tamil Nadu-635 103, [PAN: AFBPP3725K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri G.Akash, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1072191979(1) dated 15.01.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2012-13.
2.0 At the outset, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has violated its principles of natural justice by not considering the additional evidences filed before him. The Ld. AR informed that it could not make due compliance before the Ld. AO as result of which cash deposit of Rs.23,08,000/- was added in its case as unexplained. The Ld. AR argued that it filed additional evidences before the Ld.CIT(A), as evident from page 4 of the order, however, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to reject since the assessee had omitted to make an application under Rule 46A. It was submitted that non-indication of Rule 46A was an inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee. Accordingly request was made to set aside the matter to Ld.CIT(A) for reconsideration. 3.0 The Ld.DR relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the fact that the addition has been made by the Ld.AO for non-compliance by the assessee. It is also seen that the Ld.CIT(A) has merely rejected the additional evidences for non-reference to Rule 46A by the assessee. It is trite law that substance prevails over Form. Non-mention of Rule 46A cannot be a strong ground for rejection of evidences produced by the assessee. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee deserves another opportunity of presenting its case. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal after admitting the evidences produced before him. He shall be providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. He may obtain remand report from the Ld.AO if deemed Page - 2 - of 3 necessary. The assessee shall comply all the statutory notices and any non-compliance would be viewed adversely. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th , April -2025 at Chennai.