M/s. Aartee Roadways, Anand V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Anand

ITA 1073/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8197 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1073/AHD/2014 M/S. ARTEE ROADWAYS VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND RAJPAL YADAV JM] ITA NO. 1073/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S. ARTEE ROADWAYS ..................APPEL LANT NR. TULSI CINEMA, AMUL DAIRY ROAD, ANAND 388 001 [PAN : AADFA 1735 F] VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ............................RESPONDENT WARD-1, ANAND APPEARANCES BY: ASEEM THAKKAR FOR THE APPELLANT MUDIT NAGPAL FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 25.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 27.10.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)- IV, BARODA IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 23 DAYS, BUT THE AS SESSEE HAS MOVED A PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY, ON WHICH WE HAVE HEAR D BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRAVERSING THROUGH A DI FFICULT FINANCIAL PERIOD AND FACING RECOVERY SUITS FROM THE BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITU TIONS. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO THIS DIFFICULT PATCH OF TIME AND THE PRO BLEMS BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS THAT THE DELAY IN FILING O F THE APPEAL IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED. HAVING CONSIDERED THIS EXPLANATION AND HAV ING HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELA Y AND PROCEED TO TAKE UP THE MATTER ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CONDON ED. 3. ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRI EVANCES:-- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,45,226/- OF TY RE EXPENSES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE HEARING IN RESPECT O F TYRE EXPENSES. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,29,235/- OF THE TRUCK REPAIRING EXPENSES. ITA NO. 1073/AHD/2014 M/S. ARTEE ROADWAYS VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. WHEN WE TOOK UP THE MATTER FOR HEARING ON MERITS , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT T HAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE HEARIN G WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IT IS PRIMARILY FOR THIS REASON THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, AS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 21 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS POS ITION, LEARNED COUNSEL SUGGESTS THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS AFTER ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. LEARNED C OUNSEL ALSO POINTS OUT THAT IN CASE THERE WERE SOME DEFECTS, AS INDEED THERE WERE, WITH RESPECT TO PROCEDURAL ASPECTS, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT W ITH THE SAME, RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 46A, AS POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A), WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR WI LFUL BUT ON ACCOUNT OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE PERSONS DE ALING WITH THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE ARE THUS URGED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS LINE OF AR GUMENT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS A STRONG CASE ON MERIT S AND IN THE EVENT OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING KIND ENOUGH TO ADMIT THESE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HE IS HAPPY TO ARGUE ON MERITS . HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINATION OF ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND POINTS OUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH SUCH ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIES UPON THE STAND OF THE CIT(A), BUT QUITE FAIRLY DOES NOT DISPUTE THE MATTER BEING REMI TTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THIS SUGGESTION OF THE LE ARNED COUNSEL AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON AFTER ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY GIVING THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE OPPORTUNI TY OF PRESENTING HIS CASE. IN ANY CASE, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE BONAFIDES OF THE SAME . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ON MERITS, THESE EVIDENCES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, WE SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US ON MERITS. THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS ACADEM IC AS OF NOW AND DOES NOT NEED OUR ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 27 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 27 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 **BT ITA NO. 1073/AHD/2014 M/S. ARTEE ROADWAYS VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ......27.10.2017.- ... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 27.10.2017........ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 27.10.2017....... . 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .. 27.10.2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : .... 30.10.2017.. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: ..