ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI V. INTELLECT DESIGN ARENA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1478/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9209 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; FORM 26AS
• Section: 250; 251

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2013-14 & 2014-15) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI 34. VS M/S. INTELLECT DESIGN ARENA LTD., POLARIS HOUSE, NO.244, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 006. PAN: AAACL5896N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.P. CHIDAMBARAM, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.01.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)8, CHENNAI DATED 28.01.2019 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 2. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE BILL-WISE AND PARTY-WISE PAYMENTS THAT ARE REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FILED BEFORE HIM, WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH INVITING THE ATTENTION OF THE LD.DR TO PAGE NO.9 AND PARA NO.7 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WAS FILED AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) IS BOUND TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT. SINCE SUCH EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE BY THE CIT(A), THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.DR PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. NE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P.) LTD., [2016] 65 TAXMANN.COM 180 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE CIT(A) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME. 3 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S.P. CHIDAMBARAM, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PARTY- WISE RECONCILIATION AND THE DIFFERENCE IN FORM 26AS STATEMENT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A), FILED THE PARTY-WISE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. SINCE THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND PARTY-WISE DETAILS ARE FILED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A), THERE IS NO NEED FOR GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, MORE PARTICULARLY SUB-CLAUSE 4, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALL THE POWERS TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT OR EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHAVATI S SHAH VS. CIT, 231 ITR 1. THE LD.AR HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S.SUPER LEASING LTD. VS ACIT, 56 TTJ 258. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) BEING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME TAX ACT COULD DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO 4 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 PRODUCE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AND ENTERTAIN THE SAME WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 & 251 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 250. PROCEDURE IN APPEAL (1) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL FIX A DAY AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AND SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT AND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHOSE ORDER THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED. (2) THE FOLLOWING SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL- (A) THE APPELLANT, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE; (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY A REPRESENTATIVE. (3) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ADJOURN THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL FROM TIME TO TIME. (4) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, BEFORE DISPOSING OF ANY APPEAL, MAKE SUCH FURTHER INQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT, OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AND REPORT THE RESULT OF THE SAME TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). (5) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, AT THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL, ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO GO INTO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIED THAT THE OMISSION OF THAT GROUND FROM THE FORM OF APPEAL WAS NOT WILFUL OR UNREASONABLE. (6) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL STATE THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. (6A) IN EVERY APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE, MAY HEAR AND DECIDE SUCH APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 246A. (7) ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL COMMUNICATE THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO THE 5 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. 251. POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). (1) IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS-- (A) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, HE MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT ; (AA) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ABATES UNDER SECTION 245HA, HE MAY, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MATERIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE, OR THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY HELD OR EVIDENCE RECORDED BY, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON HIS RECORD, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT ; (B) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY, HE MAY CONFIRM OR CANCEL SUCH ORDER OR VARY IT SO AS EITHER TO ENHANCE OR TO REDUCE THE PENALTY; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS IN THE APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT. (2) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT OR A PENALTY OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REFUND UNLESS THE APPELLANT HAS HAD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUCH ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION. EXPLANATION IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY CONSIDER AND DECIDE ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WAS PASSED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH MATTER WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BY THE APPELLANT. SECTION 250(4) ENABLES THE CIT(A) TO MAKE SUCH FURTHER ENQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT OR MAY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY AND REPORT THE SAME BEFORE HIM. SECTION 251 EMPOWERS THE CIT(A) TO CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. THESE 6 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 STATUTORY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 250 & 251 IS COTERMINOUS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS POWER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CIT(A) CAN MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY AS HE THINKS FIT BEFORE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 4.1 WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 46A. PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. 7 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 (3) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY-- (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271. SUB-CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 46A PREVENTS THE ASSESSEE / APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY OTHER THAN THE ONE WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY HIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED THEREIN. SUB-CLAUSE 2 RESTRICTS THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. SUB-CLAUSE 3 MANDATES THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL CONFRONT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE TAKING THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER TO DEVIATE FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURE, SUB-CLAUSE 4, ENABLES THE CIT(A) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT OR EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS. THIS POWER WAS CONFERRED ON CIT(A) TO MAKE AN EFFECTIVE FURTHER ENQUIRY AS 8 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 PROVIDED U/S.250(4) OF THE ACT AND ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO POWER CONFERRED ON THE CIT(A) U/S.251 TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION WHENEVER THE CIT(A) IN HIS DISCRETION DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONFRONT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHAVATI S SHAH, ( SUPRA) AND FOUND THAT THE RESTRICTION PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL UNDER RULE 46A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES DO NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) UNDER SUB-CLAUSE 4 OF SECTION 250 R.W.R 46A(4) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) U/S.250(4) OF THE ACT IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE WHEN THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON HIM U/S.250 & 251 READ WITH RULE 46(4) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CIT(A) TO CONFRONT THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHAVATI S SHAH ( SUPRA) , THE JUDGMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. NE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF 9 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 THESE CASES. MOREOVER THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION P. LTD., 56 TAXMANN.COM 434 HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW AS THAT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRABHAVATI S. SHAH ( SUPRA). THE PATNA HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PARA 5 OF ITS JUDGMENT:- 5. IN OUR VIEW THE SAID SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT BASED UPON A CORRECT READING OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AS SUB-RULE (4) CONTAINED THEREIN IS AN OVERRIDING POWER SINCE IT IS A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE BEGINNING WITH 'NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE'. THUS, THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CLEARLY OVERRIDES THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULES (1), (2) AND (3) OF RULE 46 A AND IT IS OPEN TO THE SAID AUTHORITY TO LOOK INTO ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT IF IT CONSIDERS THE SAME AS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE CIT (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL WAS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO ISSUE SPECIFIC NOTICE WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 8 LACS MADE IN M/S RAJESH CORPORATION LIMITED AND FURTHER, HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RS. 8 LACS WAS FULLY EXPLAINED ON THE BASIS OF BALANCE SHEET FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ITSELF. IT WAS ONLY TO FURTHER VERIFY THE STATEMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET THAT HE HAD ADDITIONALLY CALLED FOR THE BANK STATEMENTS TO VERIFY THE SAID TRANSACTION OF RS. 8 LACS WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET SHOWING NIL IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SAGAR SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI LIMITED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THUS, IT WAS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF EXERCISE OF THE OVERRIDING POWER UNDER RULE 46A( 4) OF THE RULES AND NOT REALLY A CASE OF PERMITTING AN ASSESSEE TO FILE FRESH DOCUMENT ON THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. 10 I.T.A. NOS. 1477 & 1478/CHNY/2019 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD JANUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 3 RD JANUARY, 2020 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF