https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245316 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245316 Compliance of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 – Admission of Information/ evidence omitted to furnish at assessment stage without seeking the opinion of AO – Deletion of disallowance of claim of expenditure on ad-hoc basis – Requisite information not furnished - Held that:- The assessee on his own cannot produce any additional evidence not furnished before the assessing officer without meeting he various conditions provided under rule 46A for which satisfaction is to be recorded by the appellate authority in writing and with which the appellate authority is further required to confront the assessing officer and allow him reasonable opportunity to have his say in the matter – Relying upon Rajkumar Srimal v. CIT [1974 (12) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court] - where the CIT is not acting suo motu in admitting additional evidence, there must be some ground for admitting new evidence. The entire additional evidence has come on the record of the first appellate authority because the first appellate authority decided to examine the facts of the case in depth and adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of evidence and material thus gathered - CIT(A) was empowered to do so under the provisions of Section 250(4) - The results of enquiry conducted by him could either go to further cement the case made out by the assessing officer or to help out the assessee against the findings of the assessing officer - The mere fact that the results of the enquiries thus conducted supported the case of the assessee and not that of Revenue has no bearing on the jurisdiction and powers of the CIT(A). But no such requirement in law is present that the first appellate authority should invariably consult or confront the assessing officer every time additional evidence that was not before the assessing officer comes on the record of the first appellate authority - Where the additional evidence is obtained by the first appellate authority on its own motion, there is no requirement in law to consult / confront the assessing officer with such additional evidence - There may be cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or application being made by the assessee - In such cases Sub-rule (2) of rule 46A requires the first appellate authority to allow the assessing officer a further opportunity to rebut the fresh evidence filed by the assessee - Even that requirement cannot be said to be a rule of universal application - If the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the appellate authority is in the nature of clinching evidence leaving no further room for any doubt or controversy in such a case no useful purpose would be served on performing the ritual of forwarding the evidence / material to the assessing officer and obtain his report - In such exceptional circumstances the requirement of Sub-rule (3) may be dispensed with – thus, there is no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue – Decided against Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530