Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) that allowed a deduction claim and deleted an addition. The appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit, but the delay was condoned. The assessee, a Primary Agricultural Society, had e-filed a return showing Nil income after claiming deduction u/s 80LA, with significant investments. The case was selected for limited scrutiny.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting additional documents from the assessee without allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine them or call for a remand report, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked application of mind.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and granted relief without providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence or call for a remand report, and whether the order demonstrated proper application of mind.
Sections Cited
250, 148A, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 69B, 115BBE, 80LA, 80P(2)(a), 80P(2)(d), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 31-December-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 18.09.2023. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 503 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appeal could not be filed on or before the due date due to huge work load relating to time barring scrutiny assessments, proceedings under section 148A and writs filed by the various assessees on the issue of 148A proceedings and there was a gap “Production of additional evidence before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely:— (a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or