Revenue's appeal allowed as CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) in deleting section 69C addition on purchases

ITAT AHMEDABAD allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69C on alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on extensive additional evidence (confirmations, e-way bills, GST returns, stock records, invoices, bank statements) that was either not before the AO or filed for the first time in appeal, without obtaining a remand report as mandated under Rule 46A(3). Due to this procedural violation, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether additions under section 69C for alleged non-genuine purchases can be deleted by the appellate authority where the assessee produces documentary evidence (purchase invoices, e-way bills, GST returns, confirmations, bank statements) for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is obliged, on admitting additional evidence filed at the appellate stage, to obtain a remand report and the Assessing Officer's comments in accordance with Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules before granting relief.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Deletion of additions under section 69C where corroborative documentary evidence is produced first before the Commissioner (Appeals)

Legal framework: Section 69C treats unexplained expenditure as income where the assessee fails to explain the nature and source of certain expenditures; the AO must be satisfied that expenditures are unexplained or purchases are non-genuine. The assessment process requires evaluation of books, invoices, GST records, bank payments, and corroborative material to establish genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties.

Precedent treatment: Tribunals and courts have held that where purchases and corresponding sales are recorded in books of account and supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence (invoices, GST filings, bank payments), additions cannot be sustained merely because suppliers are non-filers or do not respond to AO's enquiries; presumptive disallowance without evidence of bogusness is impermissible.

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority examined voluminous documentary evidence including audited books, purchase invoices, e-way bills, GST returns reflected on the portal, confirmations from suppliers and bank payment records. The CIT(A) found no discrepancies in the books and noted acceptance of sales by the AO, thus reasoning that purchases could not be treated as bogus merely because some suppliers had filed low returns or did not respond to AO notices. The Tribunal recognizes that admissible evidence proving genuineness of transactions can rebut an AO's prima facie view of non-genuineness.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that corroborative documentary evidence, when credibly establishing genuineness of purchases, negates the basis for addition under section 69C is treated as ratio insofar as it reflects accepted principles of assessment-i.e., AO must have material to establish bogus transactions and cannot rely on mere suspicion or supplier non-cooperation where books and records support the transactions. However, in the present decision this principle is not applied finally on merits because of procedural infirmity (see Issue 2), so the application here is partly obiter as the matter is remanded for verification.

Conclusions: Documentary evidence capable of establishing genuineness can defeat additions under section 69C; nevertheless, when such evidence is produced for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals), its admission and reliance are subject to procedural safeguards (see Issue 2) before final deletion is sustained.

Issue 2 - Mandatory duty under Rule 46A(3) to obtain remand report when additional evidence is admitted at appellate stage

Legal framework: Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules (as applied) prescribes procedure when additional evidence is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals); the Assessing Officer must be given an opportunity to examine and comment (remand report) on such newly produced evidence before the appellate authority passes a final order affecting the assessment.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal authorities have consistently held that admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer constitutes procedural impropriety and renders the appellate order unsustainable; matters in such circumstances are required to be remanded to afford the AO opportunity to verify and comment on the new evidence.

Interpretation and reasoning: The appellate authority admitted substantial evidence that was not before the AO and deleted the addition without seeking the AO's comments or a remand report. The Tribunal reasons that such omission deprives the AO of the statutorily mandated opportunity to examine veracity, rebut the claims and furnish factual inputs. Compliance with Rule 46A(3) is procedural but mandatory; failure to comply results in a material procedural infirmity that vitiates the appellate order irrespective of the intrinsic merit of the admitted evidence.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that the CIT(A) must seek a remand report and AO's comments on additional evidence admitted at appellate stage is ratio and determinative for appellate procedure. The decision reinforces the settled proposition that procedural compliance with Rule 46A(3) is mandatory before reliance on newly admitted evidence to disturb or delete assessments.

Conclusions: The appellate deletion based solely on additional evidence admitted first before the CIT(A) without seeking a remand report is procedurally unsustainable. The proper course is to remit the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to obtain a remand report from the AO, permit verification and hearing, and then decide the merits in a speaking order.

Cross-references and application

Where additional documentary evidence that could rebut an AO's view is produced first on appeal, two independent considerations arise: (a) the substantive sufficiency of evidence to displace an addition under section 69C (merits); and (b) mandatory procedural compliance under Rule 46A(3) before relying on such evidence to alter the assessment. Even if evidence prima facie negates the basis for addition, appellate relief cannot be finally granted without complying with Rule 46A(3); failure to do so requires remand for verification and AO's comments.

Disposition and operative principle

The appellate order deleting the addition on the basis of evidence admitted at the appellate stage without obtaining a remand report under Rule 46A(3) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority with directions to obtain the Assessing Officer's remand report, permit verification and hearing, and pass a reasoned order after considering the AO's comments and the newly admitted evidence.

---