INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. SMT.T.R.BEENA, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1331/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 November 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence without confronting it to the AO, which violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order, arguing that additional evidence was admitted without giving the Assessing Officer (AO) an opportunity to rebut it, violating Rule 46A(3). The assessment was originally framed under Section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to be heard and rebut it, thereby violating Rule 46A(3).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesha, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 07.11.2017Pronounced: 10.11.2017

Date of hearing : 07.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

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 learned CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee by admitting additional evidence, without giving a specific opportunity of being heard to the AO, to rebut the same, which is in contravention of the provisions 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, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has contended that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition after admitting the additional evidence without confronting to the AO, therefore it is in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. It was further contended that the AO has framed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act having noted that the assessee has not complied with the directions of the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) be set aside and matter may be restored to him to readjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the AO.

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the CIT(Appeals) has afforded due opportunity to the AO, but he did not come forward.

4.

Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below in the light of rival submissions, we find that undisputedly the assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the Act and before the AO relevant evidence was not filed. The additional evidence was filed before the CIT(Appeals) for the first time, but the CIT(Appeals) without confronting the same to the AO has admitted it and deleted the additions which amounts to violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the appeal afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the AO.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of November, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →