INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI.JAYAPPA REDDY, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting documents not produced before the AO and granting relief without allowing the AO to verify them. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a remand report.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the assessee's income based on a sale agreement, disbelieving the claim of exempted agricultural income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition relying on a RTC certificate produced by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition without allowing the AO to verify the same, violating Rule 46A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER
PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 14/01/19 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-6, Bangalore for assessment year 2015-16.
ITA No.812(B)/2019 2
Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed his return of income for year under consideration on 15/02/17 declaring taxable income of Rs. 7, 87, 240/-. Return was processed under section 143 (1) of the act and case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under section 143 (2) and 142 (1) along with questionnaire was issued to assessee. In response to statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before Ld. AO and filed requisite details as called for.
Ld. AO observed that assessee is has received a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs out of consideration of rupees one crore as per sale agreement dated 09/03/15. Ld. AO called upon assessee to prove the genuineness of exempted income claimed or compulsory acquisition an agricultural income with the relevant documents. Ld. AO called for various details like; details of land which got acquired details of which government/board acquired the land total amount of compensation received, mode of compensation received copy of bank statement in which compensation amount credited Form No. 26AS towards compensation received. Ld.AO has recorded that assessee had only filed letter dated 30/11/17. Rejecting the explanation given by assessee in respect of the advances received, Ld. AO made addition in the hands of assessee.
ITA No.812(B)/2019 3
Aggrieved by addition made by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT (A) who deleted addition by placing reliance upon RTC certificate produced by assessee. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) revenue is in appeal before us.
At the outset Ld. DR submitted that there is violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, as assessee had filed certain documents which was not before Ld. AO. He submitted that is Ld. CIT (A) also did not call for remand report in respect of the same and therefore great prejudice is caused to revenue 6. Ld. AR submitted that assessing officer proceeded on the footing that it was a compulsory acquisition of land which has been submitted to be not true. Admittedly assessee had not filed the documents placed at page 21 of paper book before Ld. AO. 7. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us. We agree with argument advanced by Ld. senior DR that there is a violation of Rule 46A as document based upon which relief has been granted to assessee by Ld. CIT (A) was not subjected to verification by Ld.AO. 7.1 We are therefore of considered opinion that the issue deserves to be set-aside to Ld. CIT (A) in order to give proper opportunity to Ld. AO to verify the document by calling for a remand. Ld. CIT (A) shall then pass a detailed order based upon the remand report by giving proper opportunity to assessee of being heard. (B)/2019 4 Accordingly grounds raised
by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 23-07-2019. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23-07-2019 *am Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1.Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A);
5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7.Guard File By Order Asst. Registrar 1. Date of Dictation …………
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed 3. before the dictating Member …………………….
4. Date on which the approved draft comes to Sr.P.S
5. Date on which the fair order is placed 6. before the dictating Member ………………..
7. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS
8. Date of uploading the order on website……………………………..
9. If not uploaded, furnish the reason for doing so 10. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
11. Date on which order goes for Xerox & endorsement……………………………………
12. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
13. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order
14. The date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch of the Tribunal Order
15. Date of Despatch of Order. ..
ITA No.812(B)/2019 5
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026