Rule 46A – Additional evidence should not be admitted by CIT(A) if A.O. has given sufficient Opportunity to Assessee
We have perused form no. 35 i.e. memo of appeal filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals). In the grounds raised, there is neither any ground nor whisper about not providing sufficient opportunity by AO while framing the assessment. It is further evidenced from the fact that the assessment proceedings commenced on 26- 9-2008 and assessment order has been passed on 10-11-2009 indicating that sufficient time was given to assessee for compliance. Therefore, there is no justification in the averment of assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) that sufficient opportunity was not given by AO, therefore additional evidence should be admitted. We are constrained to observe that ld. CIT(Appeals) has admitted the additional evidence in a perfunctory manner without appreciating the role of rule 46A and its requirements and verifying assessee’s averments.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
ITA No. 4491/Del/2010 – Asstt. Yr: 2007-08
DCIT Vs. E-4 Entertainment (P) Ltd.
O R D E R
PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M:
This is Revenue’s appeal against CIT(A)’s order dated 24-8-2010, relating to A.Y. 2007-08. Following grounds are raised:
“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, perverse, illegal and against the provisions of law, liable to be set aside.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1.97,61,900/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 8,92,396/- out of operation and other expenses incurred by the assessee.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”
2. Ground nos. 1 & 4 are general in nature and requires no adjudication.
3. Brief facts are: One of the directors of the assessee company Shri Sunil Bhatia contributed following share capital and share premium:
