Loading judgment…
Facts
The Income Tax Department appealed an order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2020-2021, where the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal by admitting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, which the Department contended violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting fresh evidence and deleting the addition without calling for a remand report. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to properly consider the additional evidence after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) committed an error by admitting additional evidence and deciding an appeal without calling for a remand report, thus violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
:Asst.Year 2020-2021 The Income Tax Officer Kerala Medical Education Ward 2(1) v. Department Staff Housing Thiruvananthapuram. Co-operative Society Limited Govt.Dental College Building Medical College P.O. Thiruvananthapuram 695 011 PAN : AADAK7202L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR Respondent by : Sri.Suresh Kumar C, CA Date of Date of Hearing :13.05.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal at the instance of the department is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) [hereinafter “the CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The relevant assessment year is 2020-2021.
At the very outset, the learned Departmental Representative by referring to ground No.5, submitted that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee by admitting additional evidence. It was further submitted by the learned DR that the CIT(A) has not called for a
The learned AR fairly submitted that fresh evidences were furnished before the CIT(A) and he did not call for a remand report. Hence, there was violation of condition prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The learned AR did not have any objection for the matter being restored to the file of the AO.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by admitting additional evidences. However, the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report, hence, there was violation of condition prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In the light of the same, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. The additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) shall be considered by the Assessing Officer. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the department is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2025.