IITAT upheld CIT(A) justification of admitting additional evidenced produced

 

The submission of additional evidence is often there whenever the ex-parte assessment order is passed by the AO. Furhter, even in various cases, thought the order is not ex-parte but the assessee could not furnish few documents which could have been relevant for the assessment proceeding.

Here is one interesting case of admission of additional evidence before CIT(A).

The case detail is as under:

ITAT DELHI

SANJEEV MITTAL, C/O M/S. RRA TAXINDIA

VERSUS

DCIT, CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD.

 

AND

 

ACIT, CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD.

 

VERSUS

SANJEEV MITTAL,

ITA No. 7454/Del/2018

And

ITA No. 7339/Del/2018
Dated.- May 3, 2024

The copy of the order is as under:

During appeal proceedings the assessee requested for admittance of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”). It was submitted that clause (c) and (d) of the Rule 46A(1) is attracted in the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the facts and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and decisions of Hon’ble P & H High Court in Arjun Dass vs. CIT (1975) 112 ITR 480 (P&H) and in CIT vs. Jind Cooperative Sugar Mills (2011) 335 ITR 43 (P&H) admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee before him.
The Ld. CIT(A) obtained remand report dated 17.08.2018 from the Ld. AO on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee,The Ld. CIT(A) called for rejoinder from the assessee on the remand report which the assessee submitted vide letter dated 06.09.2018

Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT(A); deletion of addition of Rs. 1.47 crore under section 68 of the Act; deletion of addition of Rs. 90 lacs under section 40A(3) and deletion of disallowance of Rs. 24,000/- observing it to be calculation mistake. All the ground Nos. (i) to (iv) relate respectively thereto.

Apropos Ground No. (i): According to the Revenue, neither clause (c) nor clause (d) of Rule 46A(1) is applicable to the assessee. Therefore, the Revenue posed the question whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law in admitting the additional evidence under clause (c) & (d) of Rule 46A(1) of the Rules. In our opinion, the reply is in affirmative. This is because the issue is squarely covered by the decision of *Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Securities and Credits (P) Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396* (Delhi) wherein the Court held as under :-

“Held that it was a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report from the Assessing Officer. While submitting his report, the Assessing Officer had had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the contentions in the assessment orders. It was only after considering the remand report, the Commissioner (Appeals) had admitted the additional evidence. It could not be disputed that this additional evidence was crucial to the disposal of the appeal and had a direct bearing on the quantum of claim made by the assessee. The plea of the assessee which taken before the Assessing Officer remained the same.

Following the decision (supra) we reject this ground and hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was perfectly justified in admitting the additional evidence produced by the assessee before him.

 

The copy of the order is as under:

1613113624-ITA 7544, 7545, 7546 Sistema Shyam Teleservices