Loading judgment…
Facts
The AO passed an ex-parte order under sections 147/144, adding undisclosed income and commission. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful as new evidence was not admitted under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, leading to the confirmation of the AO's action.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to follow Rule 46A but found the new documents vital for a correct income assessment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to consider the evidence and obtain a remand report from the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting fresh evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules and denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee for proper income assessment.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PΑΤΝΑ ΒΕNCH”, PATΝΑ
(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
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.
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.
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,
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.