Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member :
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 17/3/2017 passed by ld CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru and it relates to the asst. year 2011-12.
The grounds urged by the Revenue read as under:-
“1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences even though the assessee company was given reasonable opportunity to produce the same before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings.
On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the matter based on the fresh evidences submitted by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to examine such evidences which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3).
4. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. The ld DR submitted that the AO was constrained to complete the asst. to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act since the assessee did not extend cooperation to the AO. However before ld CIT(A) the assessee furnished certain documents and the ld CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without confronting those documents with the AO and the same has resulted in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly the ld DR submitted that the relief granted by ld CIT(A) should not be sustained.
On the contrary the ld AR placed his reliance on the order dated 4/9/2019 passed in in the assessee’s own case for asst. year 2010-11 and submitted that the issues are covered by the order of the Tribunal cited above.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The main plea of the Revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has admitted fresh evidences without giving an opportunity to the AO and the same has resulted in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules. Before us the assessee could not controvert the above factual aspects presented by ld DR.
6. Since there is violation of provision of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, we find merit in the contentions of ld DR that the relief granted by the ld CIT(A) to the assessee cannot be sustained. At the same time we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, all the issues, in which he has granted relief, should be restored to the file of ld CIT(A) with the direction to provide opportunity to the AO in respect of additional evidences furnished by the assessee before him. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) in respect of reliefs granted by him and restore them to his file for examining it afresh by duly giving opportunity to the AO in respect of additional evidences furnished by assessee. After considering the report of the AO and explanations of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on December, 2019.