The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu V. M/s. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu

ITA 199/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 19920914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; 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. 199(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN: AABFK4948A ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S KASHMIR STE EL ROLLING INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MILL, BARI BRAHAMANA, JAMMU JAMMU J&K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.K. BANSAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 28.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.11.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.03.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,21,394/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 I.T.A. NO. 199(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 II. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS BY N OT APPRECIATING THE VIEW OF THE A.O. BEFORE ACCEPTING ADDITION EVID ENCE UNDER RULE 46A, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S. III. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS B Y NOT ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. FOR INVESTIGATING THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FOR BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT. IV. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. V. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE R ESTORED. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT T HE SAME. 3. LEARNED DR STATED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS WRONGLY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY INQUIRY ABOUT THE G ENUINENESS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REQUE STED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE CANCELLED BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT, LEARNED DR FILED A SMALL P APER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 4, IN WHICH, HE HAS ANNEXED THE APPLICAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA FOR ADMISSIO N OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; COPIES OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, 3 I.T.A. NO. 199(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 LUDHIANA; COPY OF REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE A.O. B EFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A); AND OTHER DOCUMENTS (COPIES OF ORDER SHEET) . 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT 37 MONTHS TIME HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE; THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED DR IS BASELESS AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY BOTH T HE PARTIES IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT ON 17.01.2011, ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEA RNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ON 18.01.2012, ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FOR PERMISSI ON OF FILLING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D ABOUT 17 DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ITS APPLICATION DATED 18.01.2012. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS GIVEN AN 4 I.T.A. NO. 199(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ITS COMMEN TS ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 24.02. 2012, REQUESTED LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA, TO GRANT ADEQUATE TIME FOR NECESSARY INQUIRIES FROM THE INDEPENDENT SOURCES AND FOR SUBM ISSION OF COMPREHENSIVE REPORT BEFORE HIM, BUT LEARNED CIT(A) -I, LUDHIANA, DID NOT GRANT TIME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DECIDED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPTING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS IS AGAINST T HE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12. 03.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUD HIANA. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IN COME TAX RULES, 1962, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT TIME IS REQUIRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING 5 I.T.A. NO. 199(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFT ER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THOROUGH EXAMINATIO N/INQUIRY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WIT H THE SAID APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILL, BARI BRAHAMANA, JAMMU, J&K 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE, JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA 4. THE CIT, LUDHIANA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.