What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that accepting additional evidence without a remand report from the AO contravened Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was set aside.

The revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order, arguing that fresh evidence was accepted without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A(3). The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in accepting fresh evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it as per Rule 46A(3).

ITO vs Shri B R Dhanpal | ITAT Bangalore 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Hearing: 05.03.2018Pronounced: 08.03.2018

Date of hearing : 05.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2018 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia 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 examine 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.”

This appeal is listed for hearing on 05.03.2018, but none appeared for the assessee-respondent. On a careful perusal of the record, we find that notice has been issued to the assessee, but none appeared on his behalf. Therefore, we have heard the appeal ex parte.

During the course of hearing, the ld. DR invited our attention to the order of the CIT(Appeals) that before the CIT(Appeals) the assessee has filed the additional evidence in the form of copy of loan account statement, confirmations from M/s. Arjun Souharda Pathina Sahakari Niyamitha and this evidence was accepted by the CIT(Appeals) without seeking any remand report from the AO. Therefore it is a violation of the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Under these circumstances, the order of CIT(Appeals) be set aside on the impugned issues and matter be restored to him with a direction to readjudicate the impugned issues raised before us after affording opportunity of being heard to the AO on the additional evidence.

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside on the impugned issues and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to readjudicate the issues afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of March, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 8th March, 2018.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(4), BANGALORE vs. SHRI B R DHANPAL, BANGALORE

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