What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was not tenable. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to admit the additional evidence and any other documents the assessee wished to file.

The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and rejected the submission of additional evidence. The assessee was unable to substantiate its claims before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and whether the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was justified.

Hawa Singh, Gurgaon vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the common Order dated 03.11.2017 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi relevant to assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since the common impugned order has been passed, therefore, I am deciding these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2008-09), 2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has stated that AO has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. He further submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the application for submitting documents under Rule 46A, as a result thereof, the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim before him.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find assessee has filed a request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that large number of opportunities were granted to the assessee by the AO and as such there is no ground for admission of additional evidence, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the additional evidences filed by the Assessee u/R 46A needs to be admitted. Hence, I direct the AO to admit the additional evidences and any other document which the assessee would like to file. Accordingly, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of AO to decide the same afresh, as per law, after considering all the additional evidences. Needless to say that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to file all the documents/additional evidencse before the AO and did not take any adjournment unnecessary. 6. In the result, all the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29-10-2018. Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29-10-2018 SR BHATANGAR

HAWA SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments