INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 59 6 , NEW DELHI vs. MAMTA SEHGAL, DILSHAD GARDEN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3860/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that in the interest of justice, the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-evaluate the issues, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity to be heard and to present necessary information/documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order by the NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18. The Revenue's DR argued that the CIT(A) wrongly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A(1) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, because the assessee had failed to submit these during assessment despite sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence, and whether the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A(1) of the I.T. Rules, 1962

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.04.2024Pronounced: 25.04.2024

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27.12.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

At the very outset, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in view of the fact that the assessee was not entitled to produce/submit additional evidences within the meaning of provisions of Rule 46A(10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 as the assessee was provided reasonable opportunity to produce documentary evidences to substantiate his claim during the assessment proceedings but the assessee failed to do so.

4.

Having heard the ld. DR we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer.

5.

The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities.

6.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →