ANIL KUMAR,CHAPRA SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, CHHAPRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 643/PAT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 April 2025AY 2018-20193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had admittedly not followed the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in filing fresh evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal also felt that such documents were important and would enable the authorities below to assess the correct income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was permitted to submit any number of necessary documents, and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anil Kumar, is in appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated October 14, 2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte order under Section 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding Rs. 1,66,68,996/- as undisclosed income from cash deposits and Rs. 2,68,850/- as commission income, as the assessee made no presentation of facts before the AO. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) also failed because new evidence filed at that stage was not admitted for adjudication as it was not filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the new documents filed by the assessee at the first appellate stage, even though they were not filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to present crucial evidence for determining correct income? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the new documents despite the lack of a proper application under Rule 46A. The assessee prayed for the admission of this new evidence, stating that the correct income could be easily determined if these documents were verified by the Ld. AO or CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA

(Assessment Year 2018-19) Anil Kumar, S/o Nageshwar Prasad Rai, At Shankar Dih, PO- Parsa, Chhapra, Saran (Bihar) - 841211 [PAN: AXQPK3427L] ..............…...…………….... Appellant vs. Assessment Unit, Chhapra (Bihar) - 841211 .................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sh. Nishant Maitin, CA Department represented by : Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 29.04.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 14.10.2024 for AY 2018-19.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 147/144 of the Act by adding cash deposit of Rs. 1,66,68,996/- as undisclosed income, along with commission income of Rs. 2,68,850/-. Admittedly, this order was an exparte order since the assessee did not make any presentation of facts before the Ld. AO.

1.2 Aggrieved with the action of Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed because some new evidence that Anil Kumar he filed at that stage were not admitted for adjudication since they were not filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Since the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the new evidence, he is seen to have confirmed the action of Ld. AO.

2.

Thereafter, the assessee has approached the ITAT with as many as 8 grounds of appeal which effectively challenge the denial of opportunity and also to the effect that the documents filed at first appellate stage were not considered. Furthermore, the assessee has also challenged the additions on merit.

2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the new documents even when a proper application under Rule 46A of the Rules was not there. The Ld. AR prayed for admission of such new evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the correct income assessee could be determined easily in case the new documents were verified by either Ld. AO or CIT(A).

2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the documents before us. We find that the assessee has admittedly not followed the provision of Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules in filing fresh evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, it is also felt that such documents are important and would enable the authorities below to assess the correct income of the assessee. Accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand this matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee may submit any number of documents necessary for adjudication and thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) would call for a remand report from the Ld. AO. We direct accordingly,

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →