INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, SHIMOGA vs. SHRI D M RANGAHATH R/O SHARANYA, SHIMOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1106/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 April 2018AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the issue based on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1 Crore as the assessee could not provide confirmation for a loan from Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted bank account copies and a confirmation from the bank manager, which were accepted as fresh evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can admit fresh evidence without providing the AO an opportunity for verification through a remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR)
For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Hearing: 04.04.2018Pronounced: 11.04.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Davangeredated12.01.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Davangere, is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT (A) is not right in granting relief to the assessee on the addition made by the AO by admitting fresh evidence, without giving the opportunity to the AO for verification of the same under Rule 46A.

3. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief of Rs.1,00,00,000/- without examining the nature of transaction, confirmation from creditor.

4. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal.”

3.

It was submitted by ld. DR of revenue that it is noted by CIT(A) in para 5 of his order that the AO asked the assessee to furnish confirmation letter in respect of receipt of Rs. 1 Crore from Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. as a loan but the assessee could not file the same and therefore, the addition was made by the AO. He further pointed out that in the same Para, it is noted by CIT(A) that before him, the assessee has filed copy of bank account evidencing borrowal of Rs. 1 Crore from Obulapuram Mining Co. Ltd. through cheque and he has filed proper confirmation from the Bank Manager also. He has given clear finding that these are fresh evidences and considering the circumstances at the time of assessment proceedings, the same is accepted. But the matter was decided by him without obtaining any remand report from the AO and therefore, there is violation of Rule 46A and hence, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO. The ld. AR of assessee supported the order of CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. In view of these facts that fresh evidence was produced by the assessee before CIT(A) and the issue was decided by CIT(A) on the basis of that without obtaining remand report from the AO in respect of those evidences, we feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO. We order accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →