ITO, WARD- 1(2)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI V. SANTUSTHI HOMES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1678/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the CIT(A)-42, New Delhi, concerning the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) without following the proper procedure under Rule 46A. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence hastily and without providing the Assessing Officer an adequate opportunity to examine the evidence and submit a remand report. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adhere to the procedural requirements of Rule 46A, leading to the remand of the case for proper proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131783 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1678/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi Vs Santusthi Homes Pvt. Ltd., 21/48, Commercial Complex, Diplomatic Enclave, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCC4066A Assessee by : Sh. KVSR Krishna, CA Revenue by : Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.01.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated 29.12.2017. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in haste, in violation of Rule 46A. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving proper opportunity to the AO to examine the additional evidence to enable to him to submit remand report. The ld. CIT(A) ignored the letter dated 08.12.2017 sent by AO (received on 12.12.2017 by ld. CIT(A)) seeking time for submitting remand report.” ITA No. 1678/Del/2018 Santusthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The assessee vide letter dated 29.08.2017 submitted additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) which were hitherto not before the AO. The AO vide letter dated 08.12.2017 sought more time to submit the remand report. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 29.12.2017 without the remand report from the AO. Since, the procedure laid down under Rule 46A has not been adhered by the ld. CIT(A), we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to follow the due procedure, afford an opportunity to the Assessing Officer and to complete the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/01/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 24/01/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR