2019 (2) TMI 2029 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - assessee had filed fresh documentary evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 in lower appellate proceedings - CIT-A declined to admit assessee s relevant additional evidence and affirmed the impugned addition - HELD THAT - We see no reason to express my agreement with such a course of action. This tribunal s decision in Shahrukh Khan s case 2006 (7) TMI 532 - ITAT MUMBAI holds that in case. The CIT(A) cannot refuse admission additional evidence after calling for Assessing Officer s remand report we therefore restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits as per law after admitting assessee s additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It is made clear that assessee shall be afforded three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues involved: Treatment of cash deposits as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of cash deposits as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The case pertains to the appellant's appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata's order. The appellant's cash deposits of Rs. 84,17,598 were treated as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report and subsequently declined to admit the appellant's additional evidence, upholding the addition. However, the ITAT Kolkata referred to the decision in Shahrukh Khan's case, emphasizing that the CIT(A) cannot reject additional evidence after seeking a remand report. Consequently, the ITAT Kolkata restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the appellant three opportunities for a hearing in the proceedings.

Issue 2: Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

The appellant had submitted fresh documentary evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules during the lower appellate proceedings. Despite this, the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence and upheld the addition of the cash deposits as unexplained. The ITAT Kolkata, citing the precedent in Shahrukh Khan's case, found fault with this approach and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case, admitting the appellant's additional evidence. The ITAT Kolkata emphasized the importance of following due process and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity for a hearing in subsequent proceedings.

In conclusion, the ITAT Kolkata allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a fair and thorough adjudication of the case in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in tax assessment matters.