| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1888 (Bang-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250(6) Section 250(4) Section 249(4)
It was sacrosanct obligation of CIT(A) to have ensured that an effective opportunity was granted assessee for presenting its case and thus CIT(A) erred in completing proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice by not affording opportunity to assessee to furnish additional submissions and documents pertinent to the additions made. The case of assessee squarely fell within circumstances explicitly laid down under rule 46A and order of CIT(A) on the subject matter of appeal was thus set aside for denovo adjudication.
|
Appeal [CIT(A)] - Order of CIT(A) - Non-admission of additional evidence even when no proper opportunity of show-cause given by AO -
Assessee challenged validity of order passed under section 250 on the ground that CIT(A) erred in completing proceedings in violation of principles of natural justice by not affording opportunity to assessee to furnish additional submissions and documents pertinent to the additions made.Held: Judicial propriety demands that a fair opportunity should be given to the assessee to enable it to explain its case. The breach of sacrosanct principles of natural justice is fundamental and goes to the root of the process of framing assessment. In the instant case. A perusal of sequence of event shows that so called final show-cause Notice, dt. 27-12-2017 issued by AO sought details and explanations on certain expenses in question expecting assessee to comply thereiwth on the very next day, i.e., 28-12-2017 and assessment order was eventually passed on 29-12-2017. It was thus, apparent that opportunity granted by show-cause notice was illusory and an empty formality to complete assessment. When seen in conjunction, it was yet more difficult to perceive that superior authority i.e. CIT(A) expected to rectify such apparent violation in granting due opportunity refused to admit the additional evidences moved before him. It was indeed sacrosanct obligation of CIT(A) to have ensured that an effective opportunity was granted to an assessee for presenting his case. The case of assessee squarely fell within circumstances explicitly laid down under rule 46A. In view of the mandate of section 250(4) situation clearly warranted admission of additional evidence by CIt(A). Accordingly, order of CIT(A) on the subject matter of appeal was thus set aside for denovo adjudication in accordance with law, after making or causing proper enquiry by AO as he might consider expedient.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2014-15 & 2015-16
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|