HADEESH MOHAMMAD, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

PDF

ITA 462/RPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 March 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee appealed against an order from the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for AY 2019-20, arguing they were not permitted to file additional evidence. The original assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO under Section 144 due to the assessee's non-compliance, for which the assessee cited genuine causes and circumstantial reasons. The assessee contended that non-acceptance of additional evidence violated principles of natural justice and that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report under Rule 46A(3).

Held

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC adjudicated the matter without appreciating or admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the case back with a direction that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC admit additional evidence, call for a remand report under Rule 46A(3), and adjudicate the matter as per law under Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was also directed to comply with future hearing notices.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by not admitting additional evidence and adjudicating without a remand report, thereby violating principles of natural justice, especially in an ex-parte assessment.

Sections Cited

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CA

For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Hearing: 28.03.2025Pronounced: 28.03.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 26.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the assessee was not permitted to file additional evidences. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessment was completed by the A.O u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and there was no compliance by the assessee. Nonetheless, the Ld. Counsel submitted that they were prevented by the genuine causes and circumstantial reasons, for which, the assessment was framed u/s.144 of the Act. It was further contented by the Ld. Counsel that for proper appreciation of facts, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC ought to have accepted additional evidence and in terms of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 could have obtained a remand report from the A.O. The Ld. Counsel submitted that non-accepting of the additional evidences at the threshold amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Ld. CIT-DR conceded the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that the matter may be decided denovo only after considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC while complying with the principles of natural justice.