Shri Arun Kumar Tandon, Lucknow vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer 4(1) v. Shri. Arun Kumar Tandon Lucknow 15, Rama Niwas, A.P. Sen Road Charbagh, Lucknow TAN/PAN:ACEPT6447J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri. Y. P. Srivastav, D.R. Respondent by: Shri. B. C. Kapil, FCA Date of hearing: 10 11 2014 Date of pronouncement: 09 01 2015

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.13.54 lakhs by admitting the additional evidence without affording an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine and cross verify the facts given by the assessee before him in view of the provisions of Rules 46A of the Income-tax rules, 1962.

2. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld. D.R. has invited our attention that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.13.54 lakhs under section 69 of the Act on account of its deposit in the bank. Before the Assessing Officer, assessee could not furnish the relevant information, but before the ld. CIT(A) assessee has filed affidavit of the assessee and Shri. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Director of the Adhunik Metallics Ltd. in order to explain the deposits made in the bank. The ld. CIT(A) did not confront this additional evidence to the Assessing Officer and admitted the same and having relied on it, he deleted the addition. The ld. D.R. has further contended that admission of the additional evidence without confronting to the Assessing Officer is a violation of the :-2-:

provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after confronting the affidavits received by him to the Assessing Officer and also after obtaining his comments.

3. During the course of hearing, a specific query was raised from the ld. counsel for the assessee as to whether additional evidence filed before him was ever confronted to the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel for the assessee could not furnish satisfactory explanation in this regard.

4. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that in the entire order, the ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned anywhere that the additional evidence was ever confronted to the Assessing Officer. He has, however, admitted the same and granted relief to the assessee. Since the additional evidence was admitted without confronting to the Assessing Officer, it is a gross violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be called to be a valid order. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after confronting the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer and after obtaining his comments in this regard. Needless to mention here that proper opportunity be also afforded to the assessee.

5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.

Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED:9th January, 2015 :-3-:

JJ:1812

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar