Sanjay Yadav, Gurgaon V. ITO, Ward- 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 81/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Yadav, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, which had rejected additional evidence submitted under Rule 46A during the assessment year 2014-15. The additional evidence consisted of a balance sheet and profit & loss account, which the CIT(A) deemed as self-serving without any supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the evidence at the admission stage and directed that the additional evidence be considered on its merits after admission.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112565 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 81/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 81 /DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Yadav, S/o Sh. Haropal Yadav, 2394, Basement, Sector-46, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. PAN- ACFPY9414K Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department represented by Shri Yogesh Nair, Sr. DR Date of hearing 13.06.2023 Date of pronouncement 21.06.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, (hereinafter referred as 2 ITA No. 81/Del/2019 “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”) in Appeal no. 698/16-17, for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”). 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It comes up from the record that amongst other grounds on merits, the assessee has raised ground no. 3 about error committed by the learned CIT(Appeals) in rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. 4. Learned DR has supported the same by submitting that on merits this evidence has not assisted the assessee. 5. It can be observed that additions have been made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis that learned AO was not satisfied with the details of capital introduced and had made addition as assessee. Additional evidence was sought to be filed under Rule 46A by the appellant before learned CIT(Appeals) in the form of balance- sheet and P&L account and the same were not admitted by learned CIT(Appeals) calling them self serving statement without any supporting evidence. 6. The Bench is of the considered view that an evidence cannot be refused to be accepted and admitted under Rule 46A on the ground that it is self serving 3 ITA No. 81/Del/2019 statement, as that is a question to be examined when appreciation of the evidence, once admitted, is to be done to draw the inference on the basis of evidence. Additional evidence cannot be denied on the basis of it’s own merits. At the stage of admission of evidence as per Rule 46A, CIT(A) is required to consider if the appellant satisfies his case within the conditions specified therein for admission of additional evidence which are as under: a. The AO has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. b. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the evidence in the assessment proceedings. c. The AO has made assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 7. Even otherwise, the nature of additional evidence for which the assessee sought opportunity to justify the addition in capital on basis of financials and assessee deserved complete opportunity. The copy of application under Rule 46A available at page 65 of the PB shows, assessee has claimed that he was not aware why his AR did not file evidence which were otherwise available. Thus bench is of considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has failed to justify the rejection of additional evidence. 4 ITA No. 81/Del/2019 8. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is allowed and learned CIT(Appeals) is directed to admit the additional evidence and decide the issues on merits. Needless to say that remand report of Ld. AO may be called and appellant may also be heard on the merits of evidence. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Draft dictated 13.06.2023 Draft placed before author 14.06.2023 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Order signed and pronounced on File comes to P.S. File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk Date of dispatch of Order Date of uploading on the website 5 ITA No. 81/Del/2019