ARUN KHURANA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

At the outset, the ld. AR drew our attention to ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal in which the assessee has taken the ground that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has challenged the action of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in rejecting the additional evidences sought to be filed by the assessee before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. AR submitted that since these additional evidences were germane to the entire controversy, suitable directions may be given to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) to admit additional evidences being sought to be admitted by the assessee and, thereafter, the appeal may be decided on merits. Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to such directions being issued to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the file to the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) with the direction to admit additional evidences as were being sought to be admitted by the assessee before him in the appellate proceedings and thereafter adjudicate the appeal de novo after giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut the additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules as well as after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2018.