M/S. ATHMASHAKTHI MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MANGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submissions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee did not appear, and notices were returned. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) admitted fresh documents without confronting the AO, violating Rule 46A.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer, thereby violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 01-12-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-1, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notices sent by the Registry were returned by the postal department with the noting that the addressee has left the place. On one occasion, the Ld DR was directed to serve the notice, but the details of service of notice were not M/s. Bateman Engineering I Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore submitted. The Ld D.R submitted that the issues contested by the revenue need to be restored to the file of Ld CIT(A), since the Ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the issues by examining certain fresh documents without confronting them to the assessing officer. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
The Ld D.R submitted that the revenue is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in excluding certain comparable companies. Inviting our attention to the order passed by Ld CIT(A), the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has admitted certain evidences furnished before him in respect of above said companies and it is not clear as to whether those evidences were furnished to the assessing officer by the assessee. He submitted that the Ld CIT(A) also did not confront them with the assessing officer. Accordingly he submitted that there is violation of Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules. Accordingly he submitted that all the issues may be restored to the file of Ld CIT(A) for examining them afresh by duly confronting the new evidences furnished by the assessee to the AO/TPO.
We find merit in the submissions made by Ld D.R. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues contested by the revenue to the file of Ld CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh by duly confronting the evidences furnished by the assessee with the assessing M/s. Bateman Engineering I Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore officer. The report, if any, furnished by the assessing officer may be confronted with the assessee. After hearing both the parties, the Ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.3.2020.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026