SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA,SHILLONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - SHILLONG, SHILLONG

ITA 124/GTY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 May 2022AY 2012-134 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file additional evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide the issues afresh after giving a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) decided the appeal without waiting for a remand report after the assessee submitted additional evidence. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in completing proceedings without adequate opportunity and without considering the remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without considering additional evidence and without obtaining a remand report from the AO, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Shri Manish Borad

अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Shri Jaspal Singh Sethi, Advocate,Ld.AR Appellant/Assessee ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT,Ld.DR Respondent/Department सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 25-05-2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date 26-05-2022 of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R

PER MANISH BORAD, AM.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Shillong dated 31-01-2019, which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 31- 03-2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Shillong. 1. A.Y 2012-13 Shri Chandra Mohan Jha

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant.

1.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings without waiting for the remand report from the Assessing Officer when an application under Rule VA of the .T Rules duly filed and accepted and proceedings of remand report before the Assessing Officer was pending.

1.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order when the matter was adjourned sine-die

2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,43,203/- from dealing in agricultural commodities without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and the additional evidence submitted by the appellant.

2.2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has totally ignored the fact the very nature of income has been accepted in the previous and subsequent years of returns.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.60,71,000/- without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating that the source of income and the source of cash deposits in the bank are absolutely the same.

4. That the assessment order as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. A.Y 2012-13 Shri Chandra Mohan Jha

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of assessee without waiting for remand report from the Ld. AO.

The Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing the request for restoring the issue(s) to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The undisputed fact remains is that the assessee has claimed to have filed certain additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the I.T Rules, 1962. These additional evidences claimed to go to the root of the matter and have direct bearing on the facts of the case. We also find that an application dt. 21-06-2018 was filed by the assssee placed at page-16 of the P.B showing that certain additional evidence in form of various documents including bank account were submitted by the assessee. However, on going through the said application dt. 21-06-2018, we find that the same has been addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Shillong. We also find that in the impugned order there is no such reference of additional evidence(s), which have been admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and the same being forwarded to the ld. AO for getting the remand report.

However, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we provide one more opportunity to the assessee to file the said additional evidences as filed along with application dt.21-06-2018 3. A.Y 2012-13 Shri Chandra Mohan Jha to the ld. CIT(A), who shall, thereafter, call for the remand report from the Ld.AO and decide the issue(s) raised before us afresh as per law after giving proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, all the issues raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →