Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (7) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quested the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence. In the present case, since the assessment order had been passed u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee had no occasion to place on the record the relevant evidence essential for the just decision of the case. Further, it is not apparent from the assessment order that the notices issued/sent to the assessee were served upon him and the despite the service of notices, the assessee failed to appear before the AO. The assessee had no option but to adduce additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence which the assessee intended to adduce. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the amount received should not be treated as his taxable income. The said notices were served by affixing the copies thereof. However, on the said date neither anybody attended nor any application for adjournment was received by the AO. The AO in order to afford one more opportunity in the interest of justice, adjourned the proceedings and issued letter to the assessee to appear on the next date fixed for hearing and furnish reply if any. Since no response was received, AO decided to proceed ex-parte and completed the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of material available on record and determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 8,66,126/-, treating the amount received by the assessee as his taxable inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have also been deducted which fact has not been verified by the Assessing Officer showing total non-application of mind while framing best judgment assessment and upholding of the same by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on technical grounds is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the order passed under section 144/147 of the Act is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable. 5. At the outset, the Ld. counsel submitted the assessee does not want to press ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel, we dismiss ground No. 1 2 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee did not file proper application under Rule 46, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the request of the assessee for admission of additional evidence. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the appellant/assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly declined to admit the additional evidence which the assessee wanted to rely during the appellate proceedings. Admittedly, in this case, the AO has passed the assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act and the assessee could neither file any document in support of his contention nor argue his case personally or through his representative. Under these circumstances the assessee had no option but to adduce additional eviden .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIT(A) has declined to admit the additional evidence only for the reason that the assessee has not filed an application under Rule 46. We further notice that Ld. CIT(A) has not even discussed the nature of evidence which the assessee intended to place on record and its relevance in adjudication of the issues raised by the appellant. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji others 1987 SCR (2) 387 has inter alia held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 11. In view of the facts of the case and the circumstances under which the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates