What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The primary grievance was the non-admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A during the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Chintan A Zaveri vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, D.R

Hearing: 17.06.2019Pronounced: 25.06.2019

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.10.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

The issue raised in the 1st ground of appeal by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences under rule 46A without appreciating the fact that assessee was prevented for sufficient reasons in not submitting the said evidences in the assessment proceedings and therefore the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

2 Mr. Chintan A. Zaveri 3. At the outset, we would like to mention that at the time of hearing neither assessee nor his authorised representative was present to attend the hearing despite issue of notice through RPAD. We are ,therefore proceeding, to decide the appeal after hearing the Ld. D.R. in absence of the assessee after considering the merits of the case.

After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record, we observe that the main grievance of the assessee as raised in ground No.1 is against the non admission of additional evidences under rule 46A. After perusing the order of appellate order, we observe that the ld CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee before ld CIT(A) and therefore the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we are restoring the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per facts and law after admitting the additional evidences which the assessee may file during the appellate hearing.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2019.

CHINTAN A ZAVERI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments