Non-Acceptance of Fresh Evidence u/r 46A: ITAT remands Income Tax Appeal to CIT(A) [Read Order]

The Jodhpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded an appeal to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for failure to consider fresh evidence as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

Aggrieved by an assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), Bikaner, as seen from the copy of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee. The CIT(A)[NFAC] upheld the addition vide order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act.

Suresh Ojha appeared for the assessee, and submitted that, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals should have accepted the fresh evidence submitted before him under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

It was observed that the assessee had requested the CIT(A), Bikaner on 22.04.2019 to admit additional evidence. Assessee had also submitted additional evidence in the form of Affidavit and other documents.

The DR did not rebut this fact that the assessee had filed a request for admission of additional evidence along with copies of additional evidence. However, on perusal of the CIT(A)’s order, it is observed that nowhere the CIT(A) [NFAC] has discussed the documents filed as additional evidence.

The Departmental Representative of the Revenue, Nidhi Nair – JCIT relied on the order of the AO and ld.CIT(A).

“As per the letter dated 31.03.2019 of the ACIT, Sriganganagar written to assessee which is at page no.29 of the paper book filed by assessee, the CIT(A), Bikaner had forwarded the additional evidence to ACIT, Sriganganagar”, the tribunal bench inferred.

The ACIT had also carried out an investigation with reference to the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Once, the CIT(A), Bikaner had forwarded copies of additional evidence to the ACIT - Sriganganagar, it means, that CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence.

Once CIT(A) admits the additional evidence, he is duty bound to discuss the additional evidence and the remand report in the order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. However, in this case, it seems that the case was transferred from CIT(A), Bikaner to CIT(A)[NFAC]. Since for the first time CBDT had introduced the Faceless Appeal Scheme for adjudication by CIT(A), it is possible that in the transition, the CIT(A)[NFAC] had not received copies of the additional evidence filed by assessee.

It was noted at this instance that, CIT(A)[NFAC] failed to discuss the additional evidence and remand the report.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, as the Faceless Appeal was a new concept to CIT(A) as well as Assessee, the error which has crept is a possible human error, the tribunal bench observed.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order of CIT(A)[NFAC] to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, the Tribunal Bench of Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Accountant Member held.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates