DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SRI G S NAGARAJ, SHIVAMOGGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that additional evidence was accepted without proper procedure. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partially deleted an addition made under Section 40A(ia) for transport charges. The CIT(A) had accepted additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member
The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22-2-2017 passed by the Ld CIT(A), Davangere and it relates to asst. year 2010-11.
The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the ld CIT(A) in partially deleting the addition made u/s 40a(ia) of the Act in respect of the transport charges paid by the assessee without deduction of tax at source.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the that the Registry has sent notice of hearing by Registered Post to the assessee as well as authorized representative on earlier occasions. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
We heard ld DR and perused the record. The ld DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee by accepting certain additional evidences without confronting the same to the assessing officer and the same is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.
We find merit in the contentions of the ld DR. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and restore the same to his file for adjudicating the issue afresh by duly confronting the additional evidences with the AO. The assessee may also be given adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th April, 2019.
More judgments on Section 40A(ia)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kaushal Pravinkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, AhmedabadITA 2356/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Abc Construction, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 703/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)… vs Abc Construction, BerhmaporeITA 3070/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- JCIT(in-Situ), CC-1(4), Kolkata vs K & K Minerals Pvt Ltd, KolkataITA 566/KOL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026