THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE vs. MR.M.R.PALINAPPAN, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1542/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 March 2018AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its order from the previous year, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue with additional evidence and provide an opportunity for a hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that fresh evidence was considered without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond. The issue was identical to a previous assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without affording the AO an opportunity to examine it, contrary to Rule 46A(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ajith Kumar, CIT, Shri. H. Guruswamy, CA
Hearing: 14.03.2018Pronounced: 23.03.2018

O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), interalia, on the following grounds:

1.

The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the matter based on the fresh evidences submitted by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to such evidences which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3).

3. For-these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Page 2 of 2 2. During the course of hearing, our attention was invited to the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2012-13 in which the identical issue was raised and the Tribunal has restored the matter to the AO for re-examining the issue in the light of additional evidences and also to adjudicate the issue after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In that year, the requisite certificates were not filed. Similar is the position here. We, therefore, following the order of the Tribunal for the earlier years set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the AO with the direction to re-examine the issue in the light of certificates filed in the form of additional evidences and adjudicate it after affording opportunity of being heard to the asse ssee. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

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

Pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →