| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6734 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX RULES, 1962
Rule 46A
Due to failure of CIT(A) to State whether Additional Evidences/Materials were admitted under rule 46A(1) or accepted under rule 46A(4), the admissibility or otherwise of Additional Evidences/Materials had been rendered uncertain. This uncertainty had arisen because restrictions on production of Additional Evidences as prescribed under rule 46A(1) are not applicable when CIT(A) invokes rules 46A(4). therefore, whether rule 46A(4) of IT Rules, was invoked was a critical factor in deciding admissibility of Additional Evidences during appellate proceedings before CIT(A), therefore, impugned appellate Order was set aside and all disputed matters were restored to CIT(A) with direction to pass fresh order.
|
Appeal [CIT(A) - Admission of additional evidence - CIT(A) having omitted to even mention that Additional Evidences or materials were admitted or accepted at all, whether under rule 46A(1) or under rule 46A(4) -
During appellate proceedings before CIT(A) assessee filed certain Additional Evidences/Materials. CIT(A) considered these Additional Evidences/Materials and passed impugned appellate Order, in which substantial relief was allowed to assessee. Revenue challenged this by way of appeal filed before tribunal on the ground that AO had nowhere stated whether Additional Evidences/Materials were produced by assessee suo moto (and were admitted under rule 46A(1) or in pursuance of direction of CIT(A) under rule 46A(4). Moreover, CIT(A) failed to provide opportunity to AO to examine Additional Evidences/Materials and to provide Evidences/Materials in rebuttal of Additional Evidences/Materials submitted by assessee before CIT(A).Held: Impugned appellate order of CIT(A) suffered from multiple infirmities. Due to failure of CIT(A) to State whether Additional Evidences/Materials were admitted under rule 46A(1) or accepted under rule 46A(4), the admissibility or otherwise of Additional Evidences/Materials had been rendered uncertain. This uncertainty had arisen because restrictions on production of Additional Evidences as prescribed under rule 46A(1) are not applicable when CIT(A) invokes rules 46A(4). therefore, whether rule 46A(4) of IT Rules, was invoked was a critical factor in deciding admissibility of Additional Evidences during appellate proceedings before CIT(A). Also failure at the end of CIT(A) to confront AO with aforesaid Additional Evidences/Materials in rebuttal of Additional Evidnces/Materials and to provide Evidences/Materials in rebuttal of Additional Evidence/Materials submitted by assessee before CIT(A) had caused further infirmity in the aforesaid order because AO was an interested party in appellate proceedings before CIT(A) and in accordance with well settled principles of natural justice, CIT(A) was required to confront AO, if any Additional Evidences/Materials gathered by CIT(A) at the back of AO were going to be used CIT(/A) grant relief to assessee. When issue of admissibility of Additional Evidences/Materials filed by assessee during appellate proceedings was crucial, it would be inappropriate to remand the matter to AO. Therefore, impugned appellate Order was set aside and all disputed matters were restored to CIT(A) with direction to pass fresh order. If CIT(A) decides to admit Additional Evidences, he should clearly state specific clause (s) of rule 46A(1) that would apply; while recording reasons under rule 46A(2). Further, if CIT(A) decides to admit Additional Evidences, reasonable opportunity prescribed under rule 46A(3) must be provided by CIT(A) to AO. If CIT(A) accepts Additional Evidences/Materials under rule 46A(4), even then reasonable opportunities must be provided by CIT(A) to AO to examine such Additional Evidences/Materials and to produce any evidence or document in rebuttal.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|