High Court emphasizes ITO's right to natural justice in tax appeal, upholds revenue's position.

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus Valimohmed Ahmedbhai

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat Versus Valimohmed Ahmedbhai - [1982] 134 ITR 214, 27 CTR 97, 8 TAXMANN 93 Issues involved: Addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on additional evidence admitted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) without giving the Income Tax Officer (ITO) an opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses. Refusal of the Tribunal to refer a question regarding the deletion of the addition made by the ITO.

Judgment Summary:

The High Court of Gujarat addressed the issue of the AAC admitting additional evidence without allowing the ITO to examine or cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal had rejected the revenue's plea, stating that notice was given to the ITO but he chose not to attend the hearing. The Court referred to Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, emphasizing that the ITO must be given a reasonable opportunity to examine evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The Court highlighted the importance of natural justice, stating that the ITO should have been heard when additional evidence was introduced, even if he chose not to attend the initial hearing. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in not requiring the AAC to provide the ITO with the opportunity to address the additional evidence, ruling against the assessee.

Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal declined to refer a question to the Court concerning the deletion of an addition made by the ITO under section 69A. The revenue then filed an application under section 256(2) to have the question referred. The AAC had not relied on the additional evidence when deleting the addition, stating that the ITO should not have rejected the appellant's claim without proof. The Court found that since the AAC's decision was based on the appellant's statement and not the additional evidence, the Tribunal's confirmation of the AAC's order was justified. Consequently, the Court answered the additional question in favor of the revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision to uphold the deletion of the addition.

In conclusion, the Court answered the reference questions accordingly, with no order as to costs.