When assessment was framed u/s 144 rejection of application by CIT(A) under Rule 46A to lead additional evidence was unjustified – ITAT
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2766 (2019) (02) ITAT
The appellant assessee had sought to set aside the impugned order passed by CIT (Appeals),
The Assessing Officer (AO) had framed the assessment under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) due to non-appearance of the assessee despite notice.
The AO made addition on account of unexplained cash deposited in the saving bank account during the year under assessment.
The assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) who confirmed the addition by rejecting the application for additional evidence moved under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ( ‘the Rules’) and dismissed the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has went before the Tribunal by way of filing the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that undisputedly, the assessment had been framed by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not cooperated by joining the proceedings.
It was further noted that the assessee had categorically sought to lead additional evidence by moving an application under Rule 46A of the Rules to prove on record copy of ITR filed, computation of income, copy of bank account and cash flow statement, but the CIT (A) summarily rejected the same on the ground that all these documents were available with the assessee during the assessment proceedings but he had not produced the same.
The Tribunal opined that when undisputedly the assessee remained unrepresented during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was framed u/s 144/147 of the Act, the question of producing the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence before him, did not arise.
According to the Tribunal , all the documents sought to be proved by the assessee during appellate proceedings by way of additional evidence were necessary to reach at the logical conclusion and in these circumstances, the assessee was entitled to be given adequate opportunity of being heard in order to meet with the ends of justice.
Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT (A) and remanded the file back to the AO to decide afresh