What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds of appeal to be mis-conceived. It noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not show admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, and the second ground was also taken without due application of mind.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The Revenue's grounds of appeal alleged that the CIT(A) accepted additional evidence without a remand report and failed to appreciate if undisclosed sales were accounted for.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without a remand report and whether undisclosed sales were properly accounted for by the assessee.

ITO vs Smt. Sushila Devi Jain | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(4), Kolkata….…………………………………….…….……...Appellant 3, Government Place (West) Kolkata – 700 001 Smt. Sushila Devi Jain………..…………….………………………………..……………………..…. Respondent P-2, Dalimtola Lane 1st Floor Kolkata -700 006 [PAN : ACIPJ 1806 B] Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : January 31st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : February 14th, 2018

O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 31/08/2016, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, on the following grounds:-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in passing order accepting additional evidence without calling any remand report which is a clear violation of Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Thought the ld. CIT(A) accepted that the undisclosed sales were made and without appreciating whether the entire undisclosed sales are duly accounted by the assessee in the year under question.”

2. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) demonstrates that the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are totally mis-conceived. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) is at page 10 to 12 of his order. A perusal of the same demonstrates that there is no Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Sushila Devi Jain admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Hence, Ground No. 1, is dismissed as mis-conceived.

3. Similarly, Ground No. 2, is also taken by the revenue without due application of mind.

Thus this appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 14th day of February, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated :14.02.2018 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Smt. Sushila Devi Jain P-2, Dalimtola Lane 1st Floor Kolkata -700 006 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-37(4), Kolkata 3, Government Place (West) Kolkata – 700 001 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

ITO, WARD-37(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JAIN, KOLKATA

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