The Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu V. M/s. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu & Kashmir

ITA 169/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63504 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.169(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN : AABFK4948A ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU. JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. S.K. BANSAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING:24/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:25/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 01.02.2012 ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SISTER CONCERN M/S. QUALITY CA STING LTD. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S BY NOT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN ACCEPTIN G ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A DURING THE COURSE OF APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.169(ASR)/2012 2 CONFIRMATION FROM THE LOANER, COPY OF BANK ACCOUN T OF THE LOANER, COPY OF PAN OF THE LOANER, AND COPY OF ITS OWN BANK ACCOUNT WHERE THE LOAN HAS BEEN CREDITED. 3. THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSE D OFF. 4. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR STATED THAT I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ADMITTED SOME ADDITION AL EVIDENCE, WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED AT PAGE 13 (PARA 5) OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AND THE A SSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE FIRST TIME, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY APPRECIA TED AND RELIED UPON THE SAME IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. HE REQUES TED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECI DE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER RECEIVING THE COMMENTS FROM THE AO WHICH ARE REQUIR ED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. ITA NO.169(ASR)/2012 3 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BE FORE THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR ARE WITHOUT A NY BASIS. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE DISM ISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH GROUND NO.2 RAISE D BY THE REVENUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 DURING THE C OURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO REBUT OR TO EXAMINE TH E ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE FACTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE L AW AND SUPPLY ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO THE AO WHICH WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AS MENTIO NED IN PARA 5 ( PAGES 13-14) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CALL FOR THE COMMENTS FROM THE AO AND ALLOW REASONABLE ITA NO.169(ASR)/2012 4 OPPORTUNITY TO HIM AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSU E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS, JAM MU. 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.