HADEESH MOHAMMAD, SURAJPUR,SURAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR
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
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.
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
3 Hadeesh Mohammad Vs. ITO-1, Ambikapur ITA No.462/RPR/2024
considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC while complying with the principles of natural justice.
Having heard the parties herein and carefully considering the documents on record, we are of the considered view that as a matter of fact the adjudication done by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was without appreciating and admitting the additional evidences. That as per Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC can obtain a remand report from the A.O and therefore, following the mandate of the appellate jurisdiction i.e. judicious approach must be adopted and evidence/documents on record shall have to be perused and considered before arriving at a decision by any appellate authority, since this exercise was not done in the present case of the assessee, therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication with a direction that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall admit the additional evidences and call for remand report in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is also directed to adjudicate the matter as per law in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. At the same time, it is directed that this being the final opportunity, the assessee shall duly comply with the hearing notices from the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
4 Hadeesh Mohammad Vs. ITO-1, Ambikapur ITA No.462/RPR/2024
As per the aforesaid terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th March, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 28th March, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.
