BALA FILLING STATION,BHARUCH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income declaring Rs. 58,98,190/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions including Rs. 4,26,950/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted some additions but dismissed the disallowance of Rs. 4,26,950/-. The CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence regarding transporter's certificate.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers with the AO and should have admitted the additional evidence. The Tribunal observed that a mistake was made in filing the certificate for an earlier year, and the correct certificate for the subject year was submitted to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding the transporter's certificate under Rule 46A, and whether the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250, 40(a)(ia), 68, 194C(6), 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRIPAWAN SINGH& SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assesseeemanates from the order passed under
section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’),dated
10.06.2024by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’]for the Assessment Year
(AY) 2017-18.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assesseeare as under:
“1.The Appellant prays and an appeal that the learned CIT Appeals NFAC has erred in law and on facts is not allowing the appellant’s application filed under rule 46A of the Income Tax rules for addition of additional evidence and further erred and in not considering the evidence filed before him.
The Appellant prays that the file the addition made u/s40(a)(ia) of the act of Rs.4,26,950/- does not sustain because the transporter had less
TA No.822/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Bala Filling Station
than ten goods transport vehicle on which provision of section 194C(6) were not applicable and the appellant submitted certificate from the transporter as additional evidence under rule 46A of the income tax ruled before the learned CIT Appeals (NFAC).
The conclusion the Appellant prays that addition of Rs.4,26,950/- be deleted.
Without prejudice to the above Appellant reserves its right to make any amendment or the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed its return
of income on 10.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.58,98,190/-. The
assessee-firm is engaged in the business of retail trade in petroleum
products. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. After
hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) added
Rs.10,47,297/-, Rs.4,26,950/-, Rs.3,75,000/- and Rs.6,500/- on account of
unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the
Act, reconstitution fees capitalized and interest income respectively.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the
CIT(A). The appellant raised grounds on the first three additions. The CIT(A)
deleted the additions of Rs.10,47,927/- and Rs.3,75,000/-. However, he
dismissed the disallowance of Rs.4,26,950/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act
by not considering the prayer of the assessee to admit additional evidence
under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The appellant had
submitted that transport expenses of Rs.4,26,951/- was paid to M/s Sonal
Transport, which did not own 10 or more than 10 trucks. The appellant
filed declaration from the transporter and requested to admit the same as
TA No.822/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Bala Filling Station
additional evidence under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) did not admit the
additional evidence because appellant did not submit the same before AO
despite sufficient opportunities granted to it by AO. The CIT(A) observed
that the appellant failed to make out a case under any of the 4 limbs of
Rule 46A(1). Accordingly, he dismissed the ground.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before
the ITAT. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee
submitted a paper book and stated that the appellant had filed copy of
PAN card of Sonal Transport but it filed the certificate issued for the earlier
financial year (FY) 2015-16 [AY.2016-17] and not the subject AY.2017-18.
Before the CIT(A), the appellant submitted the certificate for the year
under consideration but he did not admit it. The ld. AR submitted that the
appellant had submitted certificate of the earlier year to AO by mistake,
which was sought to be rectified by filing the correct certificate before the
CIT(A). He relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in case of M/s M. M.
Chhabra & Sons (HUF) vs. ACIT, ITA No.429/Del/2010. He, therefore,
requested that the said that the matter may be set aside to CIT(A) to pass
appropriate order after admitting the additional evidence.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld.
Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available
on record. We have also carefully gone through the decision relied upon
TA No.822/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Bala Filling Station
by both parties. Let us first decide about the admissibility of additional
evidences of the appellant. Before the CIT(A), assessee requested for
admission for additional evidences because the appellant had filed wrong
certificate of the transporter before the AO. The reasons for not accepting
additional evidence by CIT(A) is that assessee was given adequate
opportunity during assessment proceedings, but it failed to file the proper
certificate from the transporter. The CIT(A) observed that conditions under
clause (a) to (d) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 46A are not satisfied.
7.1 We are not in agreement with the view of the ld. CIT(A). It is well-
settled that the CIT(A) is vested with co-terminus power that the AO has in
making an assessment order. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case
of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT, (1998) 100 Taxman 404 (Bombay) held
that on a plain reading Rule 46A, it is clear that the same is intended to put
fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC, any
evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than evidence produced by
him during the course of proceedings before the ITO except in the
circumstances set out therein. It does not deal with the power of the AAC
[CIT(A)] to make further inquiry, which is made clear by way of sub-Rule (4)
which specifically provides that the restriction placed on the production of
additional evidence by the appellant would not affect the powers of AAC
to call for the production of any documents or the examination of any
witness to enable him to dispose of the appeal. Further, under sub-section
TA No.822/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Bala Filling Station
(4) of section 250 of the Act, the AAC is empowered to make such further
inquiry as he thinks fit or direct the ITO to make further inquiry and to
report the matter to him. On a conjoint reading of section 250 and Rule
46A, it is clear that the restrictions placed on the appellant to produce
evidence do not affect the powers of AAC under sub-section (4) of section
250 of the Act. This decision has been followed by Hon’ble Kerala High
Court in case of CIT vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair, 265 ITR 217 (Ker.). The
purpose of Rule 46A appears to be ensured that evidence is primarily led
before the AO. In the present case, we find that the assessee had filed the
PAN copy and certificate of the transporter issued for the earlier financial
year. It was a mistake which was sought to be rectified by filing the
certificate of the subject year before the CIT(A).Therefore, in the interest
of justice, the CIT(A) should have admitted additional evidence and
thereafter called for the remand report from AO and decided the matter
accordingly. In view of the facts and clear statutory provisions discussed
above as well as the precedents cited supra, we set aside the order of the
CIT(A) and remit the matter to the CIT(A) to pass appropriate order after
admitting the additional evidence.
Since we have set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter
to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the other grounds raised by the
appellant are academic in nature and do not require adjudication.
TA No.822/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 Bala Filling Station
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963
on 13/05/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat �दनांक/ Date: 13/05/2025 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File
By Order
// TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat
