SANGEETA AGRAWAL L.H OF LATE SH. RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-60(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4668/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 April 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence was crucial to the dispute and was not available with the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with directions for the AO to consider the fresh documents and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

An assessment order under Section 143(3) for AY 2014-15 computed the assessee's income at Rs. 1.75 Cr against a declared income of Rs. 26.56 Lakh. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, as was an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, based on the AO's report that the conditions for Rule 46A were not met and the assessee failed to produce evidence during assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A without allowing proper opportunity, warranting a remand for de-novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: CA Shilpa
Hearing: 17/04/2025Pronounced: 17/04/2025
1.

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 27/09/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 14/12/2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,75,80,390/- as against declared income of Rs. 26,56,110/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 14/12/2016, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/09/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the Application filed for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 27/09/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order impugned of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed in violation of natural justice, the Assessee has not been provided with opportunity to produce the additional evidence which will go into the roots of the matter and the same is very much essential to determine the issue involved in the Appeal. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

5.Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Assessee.

6.We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.It is found from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that during the Appellate Proceedings Assessee filed certain additional evidences and the Ld. CIT(A) sought for Remand Report from the A.O.The A.O. opined that the Assessee has failed to establish that it is covered in any of the limbs of Rule 46A of the Rules. The Assessee has rebutted the version of the A.O. contending that the Assessee was asked to produce certain person in case of whom notices sent u/s 133(6) of the Act on whom the notices either not served or no reply was received. The Assessee submitted that in some cases addresses might have got changed, therefore, he may be allowed some more times to approach those persons and request them appear before the A.O. It was the case of the Assessee that, it is not the duty of the Assessee to produce parties before the A.O. Thus, claimed that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided by the A.O. and the additional evidences could not be furnished before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings as the same were in the position of third party. Considering the versions of both the A.O. as well as the Assessee on the application for additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the application of the Assessee for admission of additional evidence.

7.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, since the documents produced as additional evidence are claim to have the significance in determining the dispute involved in the present case and those documents were not in the position of the Assessee during the assessment proceedings, with an intention to render substantial justice, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to the Assessee to produce all the documents to substantiate her claim of and the A.O. is also directed to consider those documents in accordance with law and frame the de-novo assessment after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

8.

Since we have remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. for framing de-novo assessment, we refrain from making any comment on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th April, 2025

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →