Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1238 - ITAT DELHIAdmission of additional evidences CIT(A ) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - over-reporting of the value of time deposits deleted by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) exercising statutory power vested with him has called for and examined necessary evidences for deciding the issue. Such exercise of power by learned first appellate authority assumes importance in the present case considering the fact that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent his case before the AO. On a careful reading of the impugned order of Commissioner (A) it is very much clear that considering the fact that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to represent his case before the AO, Commissioner (Appeals) took the responsibility upon himself to inquire into the matter and in the process has called for necessary evidences, not only from the assessee, but from the concerned bank through the assessee. After examining the evidences, Commissioner (Appeals) has factually found that the actual quantum of time deposits in Canara Bank was to the tune of Rs.9,50,00,000/-. He has further found that even Rs.9,50,00,000/- deposited in Canara Bank was out of overseas remittances from the income earned by the assessee as a resident in USA for past so many years. No contrary material has been brought on record by the Revenue to disturb the aforesaid factual findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, if, upon examining the material on record Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a factual finding, without pointing out any deficiency or discrepancy in such finding, the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be reversed merely on the allegation of violation of Rule 46A. Revenue appeal dismissed.
|