Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition made by the Assessing Officer concerning differences in provident fund payments. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional documents which the Ld. CIT(A) rejected, citing non-compliance with Rule 46A and the assessee's statement in Form 35 that no other documentary evidence was to be filed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence under Section 250(4) of the Act, even if Rule 46A was not strictly complied with, as it was necessary to examine the assessee's claim. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) to accept the additional evidence and decide the issue on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings without exercising powers under Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250(4), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.09.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, ld. Counsel submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee submitted certain documents to substantiate the addition wrongly made by the Assessing Officer being the difference in respect of payment made to the recognized provident fund mentioned in ITR-6 and 3CD for the year under consideration. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept those documents filed by the assessee stating that the assessee has itself in Form 35, row No.12, denied that there is no documentary evidence other than the evidence produce during the course of hearing has been filed in terms of Rule 46A. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity so that the assessee would be able to submit the documentary evidence in proper form before the ld.CIT(A).
2 ITANo.2318/KOL/2024 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of both the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has itself has denied in Form 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) that no documentary evidence is required to be filed. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documentary evidence. Thus, the ld. Sr.DR prayed for upholding the orders of the lower authorities.
After hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, I find that the assessee has filed a paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly considered the amount of gratuity as “PF”. The assessee has also filed a certificate from the auditors who have duly verified the figures as have been stated for consideration in the documents filed in the form of paper book before the Tribunal. However, those documents have not been accepted by the ld.CIT(A) as the assessee has not complied with Rule 46A of I.T.Rules, 1962. On perusal of the documents filed in the form of Paper Book before me, I am of the considered view that if the evidences filed by the assessee are necessary to examine the claim of the assessee, the CIT(A) should consider the necessary evidence in exercise of powers u/s 250(4) of the Act even if the case of the assessee does not fall within the four comers of the circumstances enumerated in rule 46A(l) of I.T.Rules, 1962. Accordingly, I direct the ld.CIT(A) to accept the additional evidences filed in the form of paper book by the assessee and decide the issue on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the