What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report when new documents were accepted under Rule 46A. Failing to do so denied the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was against an order by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer before adjudicating the issue, violating principles of natural justice. The Revenue did not object to remitting the matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not obtaining a remand report when new documents were admitted during appellate proceedings.

Allmost Dealers Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. DR

Hearing: 18/12/2019Pronounced: 23/01/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-13, Kolkata in appeal no. 171/CIT(A)-13/Cir-4(2)/Kol/2016-17, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 25/02/2016.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not take remand report from Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue, which is against the principles of natural justice. Since the remand report was not Allmost Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2013-14 taken by ld. CIT(A) therefore assessee could not plead his case properly. Therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence ld. Counsel prayed that matter may be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh. The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A).

We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other material available on record. We note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee produced documents which were not entertained by ld. A.O. The relevant para which is quoted in the appellate order is being reproduced below (to the extent applicable for our discussion):

“ 5. That the appellant has filed a written submission along with the documents. The documents were produced in course of hearing but not entertained by the ld. A.O. Hence the same are required to be accepted u/s 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962.”

We note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted documents which were accepted by ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, therefore ld. CIT(A) ought to have called remand report in respect of these documents, which has has failed to do so. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party should be granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to plead his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. Page | 2

Allmost Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2013-14 CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 23.01.2020

ALLMOST DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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