Online Updated Classes for CA CS CMA Subjects for Nov 21/May 22 Exams. Enroll Now!! Call: 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rejection or non-entertainment of additional evidence filed under rule 46A is unwarranted and against law, states ITAT

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Agra

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated, 30.11.2018 for A.Y. 2010-11.

Citation :
I.T.A No. 23/Agra/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AGRA BENCH: AGRA
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A No. 23/Agra/2019
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11)

Shri Jay Singh S/o Shri Ram
Dayal, Village Maharajpur, Post
Khaneta, Tehsil Joura,
DisttMorena.
PAN:CFWPS1529H
(Appellant)

vs

Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2(2)(3),
Firozabad.
(Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv.
Respondent by Smt. Sita Srivastava, DR.
Date of Hearing 24.08.2021
Date of Pronouncement 20.09.2021
ORDER

1. The assessment order was passed U/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961,by the AO, for the A.Y.201-11 dated 27. 01.2017 exparte qua the assessee.During the course of the scrutiny assessment, the AO has treated the entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.22,01,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition of Rs.22,01,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, rejecting "additional evidences" being filed by the assessee under Rule 46A by way of affidavits Shri Naresh Singh & Shri Bishan Singh (brothers of the assessee) claiming that sale proceeds received by them from buyers as sale consideration from sale of jointly held land was deposited in SB A/c of the appellant, Shi Jay Singh.

2. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have either verified the circle rates of the agricultural land from the office of land registering authority to arrive at the correct value of the land or made third party verification regarding the value of rates of land in the vicinity/ neighborhood instead of outright rejecting the additional evidence filed by assessee in casual manner. Such rejection or non-entertainment of additional evidence filed under rule 46A is unwarranted and against law. Therefore, we direct the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and examine the veracity of the same after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.In view of the above facts, we acknowledge that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the short delay in filing the appeal which has not been appreciated by the learned CIT(A). Considering the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee that was being not with any malafide intentions, we hereby condone the delay of 2 months and 8 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal of the assessee afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard within 6 months of the receipt of this order.

4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20 /09/2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement

 

LinkedIn







Trending Tags