|CORAM:||Amarjit Singh (JM), B. R. Baskaran (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||additional evidence|
|DATE:||April 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules which regulates the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) cannot override the principles of natural justice|
The assessee could collect various evidences only after passing of the assessment order. According to the assessee, these additional evidences are vital documents which are required to be considered in order to adjudicate the issue in a judicious manner. The principle “Audi alteram partem”, i.e. no man should be condemned unheard is the basic canon principles of natural justice and accordingly we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules cannot be over ride the principles of natural justice. Hence we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the various additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since the assessee was not given opportunity to contradict the findings given by the AO by not admitting the additional evidences, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) should re-adjudicate all the issues afresh by admitting the additional evidences.