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

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.

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.