What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the additional evidence should be considered by the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) who rejected additional evidence. The assessee was prevented from producing evidence before the AO due to medical grounds and sought to produce it before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee, and if the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence before the AO.

Manoj Kumar, Hazaribagh vs ITO | ITAT Ranchi 2018

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

Before: SHRI N.S SAINI

For Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT

Hearing: 27/11

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A), Dhanbad dated 29.8.2017 for the assessment year

2008-09.

None appeared on behalf of the assesse when the matter

called for hearing. However, an adjournment petition dated

19.11.2018 was placed on record by ld Authorised Representative

of the assesse on the ground that paper book in respect of appeal

is under consideration and not yet filed. I find that the reason given

in the petition is not a plausible and hence, reject the adjournment

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No. 281/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09

petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after

hearing ld D.R.

The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal:

‘1.For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT ( A ) was not legally justified in refusing to accept and examine all the documentary evidence , including regular books of accounts, of the appellant, produced at the first appellate stage, and refusing to examine and consider the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice, more so , when the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause on medical grounds , to produce the same in course of assessment proceedings, the first appellate order, passed without considering the merits of the case may please be set aside.

2) For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) , was legally not justified in sustaining the disallowance of loss of Rs. 9,22,050/- on business A/c , without giving any cognizance to the books of accounts along with supporting documents, produced by the appellant, in course of hearing, and as such the order passed ,violating the principles of natural justice may please be set aside.

3) For that on the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) , was not legally justified , in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- , on A/c of GIFT received , from the husband of the appellant, by way of journal entry (book entries ) , by refusing to give cognizance to the loan confirmation, supporting papers and documents , books of accounts , produced by the appellant in course of appellate proceedings , which proves the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction beyond doubt, and the appellate order passed, may please be set aside.

4) For that the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) , on technicalities of Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules ' 62, violates the principles of natural justice, and has not been passed on MERITS , may please be cancelled .

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No. 281/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09

5) For that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence in support of her return ( on medical grounds ) , before the A.O. ,but was produced before the first appellate authority, the case being covered under Rule 46A(1) (b) of the Rules '62, the lower authorities may please be directed to accept the EVIDENCE, and pass an order on MERITS of the case, for non consideration of the same leads to violation of principles of natural justice.

6) For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any further grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.’

I find from the order of the CIT(A), the assesse filed additional

evidences, which was rejected by him and appeal of the assesse

was dismissed.

Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities.

I am of the considered opinion that to render substantial

justice to the assesse, the additional evidences filed by the assesse

should be considered by the CIT(A) and appeal be re-adjudicated

afresh after allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse.

I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the

matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal

afresh after admitting the additional evidences filed by the assesse.

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No. 281/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 09

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. The Appellant : Manju Devi Chourasia, 35, R.C.Banarjee Lane, Ghanti Goli, Asansol, Dist: Bardwan, West Bengal

The Respondent. ACIT, Circle-2, Dhanbad 3. The CIT(A)-Dhanbad 4. Pr.CIT- Dhanbad 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//

Sr. Pvt.secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour

P a g e 4 | 4

MANOJ KUMAR,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO, HAZARIBAGH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments