HARI NARAIN RAI,DEOGHAR vs. DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 274/RAN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 November 20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the CIT(A) should consider all evidence. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) during appeal proceedings. The CIT(A) refused to admit this evidence, citing the assessee's delay in compliance and the nature of the evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee during appeal proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Choudhary, Adv
For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Hearing: 27/11

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI

BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No274/Ran/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07

Hari Narain Rai, R/O. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi. Sonaraithari, Dist: Deogarh, Jharkhand PAN/GIR No.AHOPR 6758 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri M.K.Choudhary, Adv Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Date of Hearing : 27/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28 /11/ 2018

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A), Ranchi, dated 21.8.2017 for the assessment year

2006-07.

2.

In Ground No.1 of appeal, the grievance of the assessee is

that the CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee without

admitting additional evidences filed before him.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that during the course of

appeal hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee filed bank

statement, balance sheet etc., and requested the CIT(A) to admit

the same. The CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidences filed

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No 274/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07

before him observing that notice under section 148 of the Act was

issued on 12.1.2009 and for the next seven months, the assessee

took no step to ensure compliance. The evidences now sought for

admission is also not of the nature that would have required the

assessee to spend time and energy. These are not third party

evidences but those belonging to his wife in the form of bank

details. Therefore, the assessee has not been able to make any

good case for admission of additional evidence and hence, they

are not admitted.

4.

Ld Authorised Representative submitted that it would cause

irreparable loss to the assessee if the additional evidences

produced before the CIT(A) are not considered before deciding the

appeal of the assessee. He prayed that in order to render justice

to the assessee, the Tribunal should direct the CIT(A) to consider

the additional evidences filed before him and adjudicate the

appeal afresh after hearing the assessee.

5.

On the other hand, ld Departmental Representative did not

object to the above submission of ld Authorised representative of

the assessee.

6.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

considered opinion that in order to render substantial justice, the

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No 274/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 06- 07

CIT(A) should consider all the evidences produced before him in

the form of additional evidences and thereafter adjudicate the

appeal of the assessee after allowing reasonable and proper

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, I set aside the

order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for

adjudicating the appeal of the assessee afresh as per law and

after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to

the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28 /11/2018. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 28 /11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. :Hari Narain Rai, R/O. The Appellant Sonaraithari, Dist: Deogarh, Jharkhand 2. The respondent: DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi. 3. The CIT(A)- Ranchi 4. Pr.CIT- Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 3 | 3

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →