SANJAY YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 81/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2023AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additional evidence cannot be rejected solely on the grounds of being self-serving; its merits are to be examined after admission. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not admitting the evidence under Rule 46A.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to submit additional evidence, including balance sheets and P&L accounts, before the CIT(Appeals) to justify capital introductions. The CIT(Appeals) rejected this evidence, deeming it self-serving without supporting proof.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.06.2023Pronounced: 21.06.2023

The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, (hereinafter referred as First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”) in Appeal no. 698/16-17, for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”).

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

It comes up from the record that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised ground no. 3 about error committed by the learned CIT(Appeals) in rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A.

4.

Learned DR has supported the same by submitting that on merits this evidence has not assisted the assessee.

5.

It can be observed that additions have been made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis that learned AO was not satisfied with the details of capital introduced and had made addition as assessee. Additional evidence was sought to be filed under Rule 46A by the appellant before learned CIT(Appeals) in the form of balance- sheet and P&L account and the same were not admitted by learned CIT(Appeals) calling them self serving statement without any supporting evidence.

6.

The Bench is of the considered view that an evidence cannot be refused to be accepted and admitted under Rule 46A on the ground that it is self serving

statement, as that is a question to be examined when appreciation of the evidence, once admitted, is to be done to draw the inference on the basis of evidence.

Additional evidence cannot be denied on the basis of it’s own merits. At the stage of admission of evidence as per Rule 46A, CIT(A) is required to consider if the appellant satisfies his case within the conditions specified therein for admission of additional evidence which are as under: a. The AO has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. b. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the evidence in the assessment proceedings. c. The AO has made assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

7.

Even otherwise, the nature of additional evidence for which the assessee sought opportunity to justify the addition in capital on basis of financials and assessee deserved complete opportunity. The copy of application under Rule 46A available at page 65 of the PB shows, assessee has claimed that he was not aware why his AR did not file evidence which were otherwise available. Thus bench is of considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has failed to justify the rejection of additional evidence.

8.

Accordingly, ground no. 3 is allowed and learned CIT(Appeals) is directed to admit the additional evidence and decide the issues on merits. Needless to say that remand report of Ld. AO may be called and appellant may also be heard on the merits of evidence. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 21.06.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →