rule 46a of the income-tax rules, 1962

from reading of rule 46a, it is discernible that sub-rule (1) contemplates certain conditions, which are required to be fulfilled by an assessee before permission to produce additional evidence can be granted to him. such conditions are specified in clauses (a) to (d). whenever any additional evidence is produced before the first appellate authority under the act then the appellate authority, i.e., Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) would record reasons in writing for admitting such additional evidence, as per the requirement of sub-rule (2). [Para 5] after permitting an assessee to adduce additional evidence next stage would come that Assessing Officer is to be granted an opportunity to examine the evidence or the documents or to examine the witness produced by the assessee. the Assessing Officer would further be at liberty to produce any other evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. thus, the first stage is that the assessee sought permission for the admission of additional evidence, the next stage would come that such permission would be granted by recording reasons and thereafter the additional evidence would be sent to the Assessing Officer for examination. in the instant case, though from the record it was not discernible whether permission to adduce additional evidence was granted by recording reasons in writing, but impliedly it was discernible that after filing the additional evidence the Commissioner (Appeals) took steps provided in sub-rule (3). so it gave an inference that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee was a relevant material and the Commissioner (Appeals) had entertained this additional evidence and only thereafter sent it to the Assessing Officer under sub-rule (3) for verification. thus after calling of the remand report on merit as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of rule 46a, the Commissioner (Appeals) was precluded with his discretion for refusing to admit the additional evidence. he could reject it as not sufficient or not provided but it was to be construed that evidence had been taken on record. apart from all these things, sub-rule (4) of rule 46a provides vast powers to the Commissioner (Appeals). he can exercise his discretion to enter any evidence even though the case of the assessee did not fall within the exceptions provided in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). the moment Commissioner (Appeals) arrives at a conclusion that the evidence sought to be produced by the assessee is essential for the just decision of the appeal or for the substantial cause of justice, it is necessary to call such material on record. in that situation interdiction provided in sub-rules (1) and (2) would not come to his way. therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly refused to admit the additional evidence produced by the assessee. [para 6]. therefore, the said issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. [Para 7] Editor’s note: - it was also held by the tribunal that expenses in question claimed by the assesses to be incurred for his professional work were incurred by the assessee on his personal travelling to delhi and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the same. - it was further held by the tribunal that out of the interest expenses paid towards interest on car loan, one-sixth of the impugned expenses had rightly been disallowed by the Assessing Officer as possibility of personal user of car could not be ruled out.