2012 (6) TMI 320 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands issues to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing Rule 46A compliance. Revenue appeal allowed for procedural lapses.

The Tribunal remanded all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine ... CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO admitting the additional evidence of the assessee – assessee is covered by exceptions provided in Rule 46A - AO did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant evidence and documents regarding clarifications asked by the AO himself before passing the assessment order - Held that:- The pre-conditions prescribed in Rule 46A must be shown to exist before additional evidence is admitted and every procedural requirement mentioned in the Rule has to be strictly complied with so that the rule is meaningfully exercised - nothing in the order of ld. CIT(A) to show that the AO was confronted with the additional evidence and asked for comment as per statutory requirement of Rule 46A(3) - the error committed by the ld. CIT(A) is that he proceeded to mix up his powers under sub-section (4) of Section 250 of the Act with the powers vested in him under Rule 46A - matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to comply with the requirements of Rule 46A . Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 made under Section 68 regarding share application money.2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 made under Section 68 regarding transactions with M/s ASA Agencies (P) Ltd.3. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000 regarding receipts from M/s Bilt Paper Holding Ltd.4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 84,45,205 regarding dividend income claimed as exempt.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 under Section 68 for Share Application Money:The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without adequate material to establish the creditworthiness of the share applicant. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence at the appellate stage, which the AO opposed, claiming the assessee did not fulfill the conditions for admitting such evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide the assessee sufficient opportunity to submit relevant documents before passing the assessment order, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to comply with Rule 46A and re-adjudicate the matter.2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 under Section 68 for Transactions with M/s ASA Agencies (P) Ltd.:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without addressing the AO's contentions and without establishing the identity of M/s ASA Agencies (P) Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not allow the assessee adequate opportunity to provide necessary clarifications and documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to follow Rule 46A strictly, ensuring the AO is given a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in compliance with Rule 46A.3. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for Receipts from M/s Bilt Paper Holding Ltd.:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without addressing the AO's contentions and without establishing the creditworthiness of M/s Bilt Paper Holding Ltd. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses similar to those in the first issue, where the AO did not provide the assessee sufficient opportunity to submit relevant evidence. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the matter, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence.4. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 84,45,205 for Dividend Income Claimed as Exempt:The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without addressing the AO's detailed contentions. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without following the procedural requirements of Rule 46A, particularly sub-rule (3), which mandates giving the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A and providing the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 46A while admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal remanded all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to ensure compliance with Rule 46A and provide the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.