ITAT Order Quashed; Case Remanded for Reconsideration by CIT(A) with Proper Procedures Ensured for Fair Hearing.

The HC quashed the ITAT's order rejecting the misc. applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for denovo consideration. The court directed the CIT(A) to comply with Rule 46A procedures and to summon third parties if necessary, ensuring a fair hearing for both parties. The HC emphasized that the merits of the case were not assessed and dismissed one Income Tax Appeal as withdrawn, disposing of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
The petition impugned an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejecting two misc. applications under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2011-2012.

Violation of Rule 46A of the Rules:
The Revenue did not raise the violation of Rule 46A in the grounds of appeal, nor was it argued, nor was an opportunity given to the appellant, violating the principle of natural justice. The respondent could have made an application before the Appellate Tribunal to admit additional evidence if the Department had raised the violation of Rule 46A.

Sufficient Opportunity of Hearing:
The Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient opportunity of hearing, leading to supplementary papers being filed before the CIT(A). Thus, there was no violation of Rule 46A.

Not Dealt with Cases Relied On:
The Tribunal did not address the decisions of the Supreme Court, Jurisdictional High Court, and Jurisdictional Tribunal relied on by the Applicant during the hearing.

Non-Compliance of Daily Order:
The Departmental Representative did not comply with the Tribunal's direction via daily order to produce information/document to ascertain the assessment under sections 148 and 143(3) of the Act.

The ITAT rejected the misc. applications, noting that the assessee's representative did not accept the suggestion to appear before the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer due to difficulties in producing third parties. The representative argued that the assessee could provide addresses and cooperate in summoning those third parties if necessary.

Against the Assessing Officer's order, the petitioner appealed before the CIT(A) and submitted documents. The CIT(A) did not follow Rule 46A procedures and did not call for a remand report, affecting the department more than the assessee.

The High Court remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for denovo consideration, directing compliance with Rule 46A procedures and summoning third parties if needed. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass orders after hearing the parties in accordance with the law.

The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and the impugned order, emphasizing that no observations were made on the merits of the matter. One Income Tax Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

---