Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed his submission wherein additional evidences and additional ground were raised and requested to admit the additional evidence under rule 46A.

ITA No. 413 & 414/JPR/2024 Sh. Om Prakash Sharma HUF On an analysis of the assessment order it is found that the appellant has been given 6 opportunities vide dated 03/03/2017, 23/03/2017, 30/06/2017, 07/09/2017, 20/10/2017 and 24/10/2017. For all these opportunities though the notices were served the appellant has not responded to the notices and shown non-cooperation towards the proceedings initiated by the department by either seeking the information for reopening, by filing adjournment letters, by filing details and by filing explanations to the show cause notice issued. Therefore, the claim of the appellant has been examined with reference to the circumstances (a), (b), (c) & (d) of sub-rule (1) of provided under Rule 46A and found that the appellant does not satisfy any of the circumstances/conditions provided for filing the additional evidence. This office has examined Form no. 35, appeal memo wherein at column 12 for the query as to "Whether any documentary evidence other than the evidence produced during the course of proceedings before the Income Tax authority has been filed in terms of Rule 46A", the appellant has stated as "No" Further, this office has neither requested for the additional evidence nor asked the appellant to prove the valuation with fresh material evidence in support of his claim. With regard to the admission of additional evidence the appellant has failed to show satisfactorily and failed to substantiate that the additional evidence is required to be admitted.

As discussed earlier on plain reading of Rule 46A, clearly mandates that the appellant is not entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of right. He can only do so after fulfilling the relevant procedure and satisfying the conditions given therein. The appellant has failed to make out his case with valid reasons as to why the same was not filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. In the instant case it is found that the appellant has not satisfied the conditions in sub rules under Rule 46A. It must be mentioned here the decision given by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrishnan Vs CIT (1998) reported in 233 ITR 485 that Rule 46A provides certain conditions and situations under which an additional evidence can be filed before the CIT(A). Where the material on record makes it clear that no attempt was made before the AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be administered.

It may not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri Vs DCIT (1997) reported in 61 ITD 139 has held that an assessee cannot adduce additional evidence before Appellate Authority as a matter of right. The CIT (A) is justified in refusing to entertain additional evidence sought to be produced by an assessee which they failed to produce before the AO.

In the light of the above observation I am not satisfied with the additional evidence uploaded at the time of appellate proceedings, since the appellant has not satisfied the conditions provided under Rule 46A. Hence the additional evidence uploaded is not admitted/and the grounds raised are adjudicated as under:

Thus it can be clearly seen that how vague language (bold fonts) has been used by Ld. appellate authority while adjudicating application for additional evidences. Further, the main ground for admission of same under Rule 46A i.e death in family of assessee has not been commented upon at all. Further, the contention of Ld. CIT(A) that if additional evidences has not been produced with form 35, same cannot be produced later is totally wrong and against the provisions of law. Hence, it is hereby prayed to hold the action of Ld. CIT(A) as invalid.