ITO, Pondicherry V. Ashwath Printers And Converters, Pondicherry

ITA 1392/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2667 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLIJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1392 & 1393 /MDS./2015 ( ! '! / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2006-07 & 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUDUCHERRY. VS. M/S.ASHWATH PRINTERS AND CONVERTORS, 258/1, 10-C,GAS PLANT ROAD, ODIAMPET VILLAGE, VILLIANUR COMMUNE, PONDICHERRY 605 110. PAN AAGFA 4598 R ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) #$ % & / APPELLANT BY : MR.A.B.KOLI,JCIT,D.R '(#$ % & / RESPONDENT BY : MR.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ) * % +, / DATE OF HEARING : 17. 11.2015 -' % +, /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.01.2016 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRI EVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(A), PUDUCHERRY IN ITA NOS.538/PDY/13-14 & 537/PDY/13-1 4 BOTH ORDER DATED 18.02.2015 PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 & SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1392 & 1393 /MDS/2015 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FIVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS I N THESE TWO APPEALS, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT:- THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULE AND PARTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CORRUGA TED BOXES AND BOARDS AND MULTICOLOR PRINTED AND FOLDED CARTONS, F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 ON 23.10.2006 & ON 19.10.2007 RESPECTIVELY ADMITTING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY BOTH THE RETURNS WERE TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 28.11.2008 & 11.12.2009 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ITA NO.1392 & 1393 /MDS/2015 3 CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT FOR BO TH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE INCOME WAS RE-ASSESSED ON 27.03.2013 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (A) GRA NTED RELIEF PARTLY TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PR ODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 09.02.2015. 4. AT THE OUTSET BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES WHEREIN IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXAMINING SUCH FRESH ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE DECISION BY THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS THEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A.R, THOUGH OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R, COULD NO T SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO HIS CLAIM. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERITS IN T HE ARGUMENTS ITA NO.1392 & 1393 /MDS/2015 4 ADVANCED BY THE LD. D.R. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BASED ON THE FRES H EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEREFORE IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUSTIFY ITS STAND. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 13 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 13 TH JANAUARY, 2016. K S SUNDARAM. % '+./ 0 /'+ /COPY TO: 1. #$ /APPELLANT 2. '(#$ /RESPONDENT 3. ) 1+ () /CIT(A) 4. ) 1+ /CIT 5. /4 '+5 /DR 6. 6! 7* /GF