M/s Roland Export, Ludhiana V. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

ITA 1359/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2155 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 263; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1359/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, 407-C, THE MALL, LUDHIANA; 141001 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: AAFFR6571A / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADDL. CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.02.2021 / ORDER PER R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.7.2019 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA [FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)] PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI RM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, TEXTURING AND TWISTING O F COTTON YARN, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 64,76,920/- THE ASSES SMENT OFFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTE R MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON AGREED BASIS. 3. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80I B IN RESPECT OF KATHUA UNIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 53,81,109/- AND THE AO HAD ALLOWED THE SAME, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA (CIT) ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. C IT AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INTER ALIA HOLDING THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF CLAIM U/S 80IB; THAT THERE IS A HUGE GAP IN GP RATE OF KATHUA UNIT AND LUDHIANA UNIT AND THAT T HERE ARE DISCREPANCIES WITH REGARD TO VALUE OF PURCHASE, FRE IGHT INWARD QUANTITY DISCOUNT IN RESPECT OF KATHUA UNIT AND IN RESPECT O F UNVERIFIED UNSECURED LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH. IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND DETERMI NED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,91,29,410/- (ROUNDED OF), AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 40,72,489/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIED QUANTIT Y DISCOUNT, ADDITION OF RS. 84,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION O F RS. 1,80,000/-ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAID AT KATHUA UNIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A) LUDHIANA. THE LD . CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 3 4. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION AND SU STAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 1,26,52,489/-(ONE CR ORE TWENTY SIX LACS FIFTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NIN E ONLY) WHICH IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AN D AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE, RELIEF NAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHI NG THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,26,52,48 9/- ON DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS/ HEADS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN DISALLOWING THE QUANTITY DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,72,489/- (RUPEES FORTY LAC SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE ONLY) AND ADDING BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE, WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS 84,00,000/-(RUPEES EIGHTY-FOUR LACS ONLY) MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, BY WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY DISOWNING THE FACTS/ PROOFS OF THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE FILED/ PRODUCED, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE UNSECURED LOAN LENDERS AND TREATING IT AS A UNEXPLA INED LOANS. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE, WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY LD. AO U/S 143 (3)/263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE WITHOUT CONSIDERING LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE DOCUMENTS AND IGNORING THE BURDEN DISCHA RGED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT BY BRINGING THE LEGALLY VALID EV IDENCES PRODUCES AT THE TIME OF THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE, WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AMOUNTING T O RS.1,80,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAC EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY) W.R.T. KATHUA UNIT. ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 4 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE' AND IN LAW THE, WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY LD. AO U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTS/ FACTS PRODUCED/BROUGHT ON RECORD AND LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED/ SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT MADE UND ER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITION EVIDENCES. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT RESTORING THE RETURN ED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT IN ITS RETURNED INCOME. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDING. 10. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE, WORTHY CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY LD. AO WHICH WAS UNLAWFUL AND MADE IN VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 11. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS M ADE BY ID. AO ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND NON- P LAUSIBLE REASONS AND THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST AND LEVYING OF PE NALTY IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND NOT CONSE QUENTIAL IN NATURE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIO N THE DOCUMENTS ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 5 PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, GREAT PREJUDICE HA S BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED TH AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL MAY BE SENT B ACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE AP PEAL AFRESH, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRO DUCED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO DUE THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AS SIGNING ANY COGENT AND CONVINCING REASONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITT ED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS PURPOSE. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN DURI NG THE PROCEEDING U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO CHANGE ITS COUNSEL AND DUE TO SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS BETWEEN THE COUNSEL AND THE ASSESSEE, THE COMPLETE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FILED ON THE DATE F IXED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS ON TWO/THREE OCCASIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURTHER ADJOURNMENT HOL DING THAT THE CASE IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.3.2013. ACCORDIN GLY, THE COUNSEL HAD TO FILE REPLY WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TWO DAYS. TH E LD. COUNSEL FURTHER ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 6 CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NON- SUBMITTING THE COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 8. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUKTA METAL WORKS 336 ITR 555 (P&H) , THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE CASE MAY BE SENT BACK TO T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE (DR) SUPPORTING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS DESPITE S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LD. CIT(A) HA S RIGHTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMEN TS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNS EL, VIDE GROUND NO 7 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPU GNED ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION FILED ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 7 BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RUL ES (FOR SHORT THE RULES) FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER RU LE 46A, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS POWER TO ADMIT THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHI CH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR THE APPLICANT WAS PREVENTED BY S UFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREV ENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN Y EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR WHERE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO A NY GROUND OF APPEAL. ADMITTEDLY, DURING THE COURSE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EIGHT DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN PARA 6.6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 OF THE RUL ES FOR ADMITTING THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARD ED THE SAID DOCUMENTS TO THE AO FOR EXAMINING THE VERACITY OF T HE SAME. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO OBJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT/A PPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SUFFICIEN T TIME AFFORDED FOR THIS PURPOSE. ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE ACT. 11. AS PER THE SETTLED LAW, WHERE THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IS ESSENTIAL FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE, THE SAME SHOULD BE A DMITTED IN THE INTEREST ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 8 OF JUSTICE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O PRODUCE THOSE DOCUMENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE AO. THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW HAVE EVEN NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ESSENTIA L FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED IT FROM FILING THE SAME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IN TH IS CASE PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON 14.12.2010. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) & 142(1) IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT ON 09.08.3013. IN RESPONSE THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE FI LED REPLY AND FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE AO FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE ADDRESSES OF THE CONCER NED ENTITIES FOR VERIFICATION OF QUANTITY DISCOUNT IN QUESTION VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 07.02.2014. ON 12.03 2014 THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO THAT HE COULD NOT GET THE ADDRESSES DUE TO H IS ILLNESS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AR TO PRODUCE THE REPRESEN TATIVES ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS 18.03.2014. HOWEVER, THE REPRESENTATI VES DID NOT APPEAR ON THE SAID DATE. THEREAFTER, TWO THREE SHORT DATES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND THE D OCUMENTS. SINCE THE ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 9 ASSESSEE FAILED COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF AO, H E COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.03.2014. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ABOUT 15 DAYS TO PRODUC E THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS TO EXAMINE AND DETERMINE THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE QUANTITY DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,72,489/-. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED REPLY ON 24.03.2014 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.03.2014. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL THAT SINCE THE CASE PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTACT THE CONCERNED PERSONS AND COLLECT THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONCERNED QUARTERS TO PRODUCE BE FORE THE AO WITHIN THE PERIOD AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAD A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT FILING THE ESSENTIA L DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FOR AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AND DECIDE D THE APPEAL CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER RULE 46. THEREFORE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE DISCUSSED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS AND IN THE LIGHT O F THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY TH E LD. COUNSEL, WE ITA NO. 1359-CHD-20 19- M/S ROLAND EXPORTS, LUDHIANA 10 ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FO R DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24.2.2021. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (R.L. NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED 24.02.2021 . . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR