Income TAx Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore V. M/s Jain Farms Pvt Ltd , Bangalore

ITA 1322/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5399 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR ACIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1322/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(1), ROOM NO.213, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD, 4 TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. VS. M/S. JAIN FARMS PVT. LTD., 59, 3 RD FLOOR, NAKODA ARCADE, DVG ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004. PAN : AAACJ 4238 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ACIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. T. SRINIVASA. CA DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 . 03 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), INTER ALIA , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON FACTS OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE GIVING THE DECISION. 3. ON FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT BY NOT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULE. ITA NO. 1322/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE AO. THEREFORE, ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO IT BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME FILED THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ADMITTED AND COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME WAS TAKEN. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND MATTER BE RESTORED TO HIM TO READJUDICATE THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AFTER CONFRONTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE AO. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT WHATEVER EVIDENCE WAS FILED, IT WAS FILED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, WE FIND THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCES. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAME AND HAVING RELIED UPON IT, HE DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED FROM THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ITA NO. 1322/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 WAS FILED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A). BUT HE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE AO. AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A, CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO CONFRONT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM TO THE AO AND THEREAFTER, AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, THE CIT(A) SHOULD ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE ADMITTED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM AFTER AFFORDING CONFRONTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE AO AND ALSO AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT FROM HIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 23/03/2018 /NS/* ITA NO. 1322/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.