ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CLARION WIND FARM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 37/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it is a violation of Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(Appeals) orders for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee submitted additional material before the CIT(Appeals) which was admitted without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it as per Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Hearing: 21.06.2018Pronounced: 26.06.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3156/Chny/2016
ITA No.37/Chny/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals of the Revenue are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Chennai, for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we heard these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

Shri N. Gopikrishna, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee has filed additional material before the CIT(Appeals) in the form of Memorandum of Understanding, copy of Arbitration Tribunal order and account copy of M/s Soundarraja Mills, etc.

1.

According to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer, admitted the same and allowed the claim of the assessee. Referring to Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Ld. D.R. submitted that when the assessee filed additional material, an opportunity ought to have been given to the Assessing Officer to controvert the contentions of the additional material filed by the assessee. Since such an opportunity was not given, according to the Ld. D.R., the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

We heard Shri R. Sivaraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee filed additional material before the CIT(Appeals) to support its claim. The CIT(Appeals) without giving any opportunity, has allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the said additional material. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. When the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, an opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer to examine the genuineness of the same. Since such an opportunity was not given, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is a clear violation of Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter on the basis of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

4.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26th June, 2018 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →