LESLEY BARBARA GALSTAUN,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-6, PATNA

Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a proprietor of St. Karens Montessori School and is engaged in the business of running school. The assessee filed his return of income showing total income of Rs.4,54,47,900/- against which assessment has been completed at a total income of Rs.6,32,71,290/- under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. Assessing Officer made various additions under section 69A of the Act for Rs.1,43,73,139/-. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing

After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and also the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has considered part of the additional evidences filed by the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the Revenue as well as the assessee filed these appeals before the Tribunal.

We have heard both the sides. The only contention of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given any opportunity to the ld. Assessing Officer and considered part of the additional evidences filed by the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. Departmental Representative pleaded before us that the matter should go back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Apart from this, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed an appeal before the ITAT on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not admitted certain additional evidences and dismissed the appeal partly. Therefore, he pleaded before us that the matter should go back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3

We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to call for the remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer and partly allowed the claim of the assessee. Similarly, the ld. CIT(Appeals) also rejected the additional evidences/some documents filed by the assessee saying that the additional evidence is to be admitted only if it falls within the conditions stipulated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matters back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to examine these issues afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to place all the additional evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer and to cooperative with the proceedings of the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/02/2025.