ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (4), CHENNAI V. M/S. RAJKISHORE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2229/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1977 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Related party transaction; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2229/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) INCOME TAX OFFICER , CORPORATE WARD-5(4), CHENNAI. VS M/S. RAJKISHORE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD., 7/486, 17 TH STREET, 4 TH SECTOR, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 078. PAN : AADCR 6450R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. SURESH PERIASAMY,JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR.G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.12.2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)-3, CHENNAI DATED 31.05.2019 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S . RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. WAS ADJUST ED AGAINST THE DUES FROM ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. RAJKISHORE DEVELO PERS PVT.LTD. WITHOUT VERIFYING THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN T HE TWO COMPANIES. 2 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 2.1. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DET AILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION DONE BY M/S. RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ALSO THE FACT THAT WHETHER M/S. RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD . HAD ADMITTED THIS AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. 2.2. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED IN RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES, 19 62 FOR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND FLAT PROMOTION FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 02.11.201 5 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,32,530/-. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2017 AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME AT ` 5,77,38,600/- BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- 1. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES : 92,75,428 2. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST : 51,90,715 3. DISALLOWANCE U/S.68 : 3,98,00,0 00 4. DIFFERENCE IN SALE CONSIDERATION: 5,45,934 5. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE TAX CLAIMED: 16 ,44,373 6. DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE TAX U/S.43B 8, 82,282 7. DISALLOWANCE OF ROC FEES 2,67,333 3 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY ITS CASE ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES INCLUDING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS U/S.68 OF THE ACT, AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS, DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS PER STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX AND DISALLOWANCE OF ROC FEES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTLY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL, WHERE HE HAS ALLOWED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNSECURED LOANS U/S.68 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, ALLOWED PARTLY RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS @ 30% BY TAKING N OTE OF AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 EFFECTIVE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING COPY OF WORK ORDER RESTRICTED THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO 7.5% OF TOTAL 4 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 EXPENDITURE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 6. BEFORE ME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI B .BALADASAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROMOTE R GROUP HAS OBTAINED A LOAN FROM FUTURE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.5,OO,00,000/- VIDE APPLICATION NO.HE-1016782 OUT OF WHICH AN AMOU NT OF RS.3,57,89,000/- WAS DISBURSED BY CREDITING DIRECTL Y TO THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.00000030328771730 STANDING IN THE NAME O F M/S.RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT L TD.(RKECPL FOR SHORT), WHICH IS AN ASSOCIATE COMPANY, MAINTAINED W ITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH THE COPY OF LOAN SANCTIO N LETTER AND BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACT ARE FURNISHED BEFORE ME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS LOAN WAS OBTAINED BY PROMOTER GROUP TO SETTLE THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY RKECPL FROM THE APPELLANT (RKD). AS A RESULT, A CORRESPONDING LIABILITY WAS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS O F RKD AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS CAPITALIZED. THE AMOUNT CAPITALIZE D INCLUDED THIS LIABILITY AND OTHER AMOUNTS DUE TO THE PROMOTER GRO UP TOTALING TO RS.3,98,00,000/-. IN SUPPORT OF WHICH, THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS SUCH AS FORM SH7 AND PAS-3 ARE FURNISHED FOR MY PERUSAL. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE HAS CLARIFIED THAT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT LOANS, THE FIRST LOAN WAS TAKEN BY RKD DIRECTLY FROM CAPITAL FIRST DURING FEBRUARY 2013 AM OUNTING TO RS 3,92,00,000/- VIDE LAN-1199126 AND SECOND LOAN WAS TAKEN BY PROMOTER GROUP, ALSO FROM FUTURE CAPITAL FOR AN AMO UNT OF RS.3,57,89,0001- VIDE LAN-1016782. IT IS FURTHER EX PLAINED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN BY RKD (APPELLANT) WAS RECORDED AS SECUR ED LOAN IN RKD BOOKS AND THE LOAN TAKEN BY PROMOTER GROUP ALONG WI TH OTHER AMOUNTS DUE TO THEM WAS CAPITALIZED. ACCORDING TO A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MIS-CONST RUED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE LOAN AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF LIABILI TY TAKEN OVER BY RKD FROM RKECPL, WHICH WAS CONVERTED AS CAPITAL TO BE UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S.68. THUS, THE AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG AS THE SOURCE FOR INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,98,00,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AND THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FROM TIME TO TIME. RE LEVANT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAVE BEE N PERUSED. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE THAT THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE PROMOTER GROUP LED BY MR.RAJASEKA R FROM CAPITAL FIRST VIDE SANCTION LETTER DATED 27.09.2012 AT ` .3,57,89,000/- WAS INITIALLY CREDITED DIRECTLY INTO THE BANK ACCOU NT NO.00000030328771730 STANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S.RA JKISHORE 5 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. MAINTAINED W ITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, VADAPALANI BRANCH ON 05.11.201 2 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SUBSEQUENTLY IN FY 2014-15, TH IS LOAN AMOUNT WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RKECPL WA S ADJUSTED AGAINST DUES FROM RKD TOWARDS PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTI ON COST. THIS LIABILITY ALONG WITH EXISTING LIABILITIES TO THE TU NE OF RS.3,98,00,000/- IN THE BOOKS OF RKD WHICH IS PAYABLE TO THE PROMOTER M R.RAJASEKAR WAS CONVERTED INTO EQUITY BY ISSUING SHARES TO THE TUNE OF 39,80,000 WITH A FACE VALUE OF RS.10/- EACH AGGREGATING TO RS.3,98,00,000/- AS IS EVIDENT IN FORM NO.PAS- 3 (RETURN OF ALLOTMENT) FILED BEFORE ME. AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THE SHARE CAPITAL HAS BEEN INCRE ASED FROM RS.2,00,000/- TO ` 4,OO,OO,OOO/-. THEREFORE, THE SOURCES FOR INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,98,00,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED. I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE AT RS.3,98,00,0001- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S.68 THE GROUND TAKEN IS ALLOWED. 8. THE GROUND NO.2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDIT ION MADE AT ` .51,90,715/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST U/S,.40(A)(IA) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S.CAPITAL FIRST LIMITED. BEFORE ME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE H AS ONLY ARGUED THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN AMENDED VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2014, EFFECTIVE FROM AY 2 015-16, TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-DEDUCTI ON OF TAX TO 30 PERCENT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. ON PERUSAL OF T HE SECTION 40(A)(IA), THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE IS FOUND, TO BE CORRECT. FROM AY 2015-16 ONWARDS, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S40(A)(IA) SHALL BE ONLY 30% OF THE EXPENDTURE CL AIMED. THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE U/SAO(A)(IA) TO 30% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AT R S.51, 90,715/-, WHICH COMES TO RS.15,57,215/-. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.36,33,500/- ON THIS COUNT. THE GROUND TAKEN IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE THIRD GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST ADDITION MA DE AT RS.92,75,428/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF OPERATING EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED A SINGLE BILL COPY IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST TO ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN RKECPL AT RS.4,63,77,138/- AND AS DETAILS SUCH AS NATURE OF WORK DONE, DATE AND MODE OF PAYMENT, ETC ARE NOT FURNISHED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, WHICH COMES TO RS.92,75,428/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE SHRI. B. BALADASAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE 6 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 RKD HAS ISSUED CONTRACT IN THE FORM OF WORK ORDER TO RKECPL TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING FOR A PROJECT T HAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKEN. THE PROGRESS OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY RKE CPL AND THE RELATED VALUE OF WORK COMPLETED BY RKECPL FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO RKD THROUG H THE INVOICE ISSUED BY RKECPL ON SO' MARCH 2015, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH THE INVOICE ISSUED HAS BEEN FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO HIM , THE SAID INVOICE CONTAINED DETAILED BREAK UP OF DESCRIPTION OF WORK, MEASUREMENT OF UNITS, RATE PER UNIT, THE QUANTUM OF WORK DONE AND THE CORRESPONDING MONETARY VALUE OF THE WORK COMPLETED. THEREFORE, TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ARGUED THAT THE CLAIM FOR EXPENS ES ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS AND HENCE, THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT A NY VALID REASON. 10. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE ME. THE COPY OF WORK ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BASEMENT PLUS STILT PLUS FOUR FLOORS RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT IN THE NAME OF RKC SUPRABATH AT VADAPALANI,CHENNAI-26 ISSUED TO RKECPL BY RKD, THE APPELLANT ON 18.02.2014 IS FURNISHED BEFORE ME. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE WORK ORDE R ISSUED IS A DETAILED ONE CONTAININQ DESCRIPTION OF WORK, MEASUREMENT OF UNITS, RATE PER UNIT, THE QUANTUM OF WORK DONE AND THE COR RESPONDING MONETARY VALUE OF THE WORK COMPLETED. THEREFORE, IN SO FAR AS CONSTRUCTION WORK UNDERTAKEN BY RKECPL IS CONCERNED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SAME. IT IS O NLY FOR WANT OF COMPLETE DETAILS, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 2,75,428/- IS MADE. HOWEVER, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE INFORMAT ION FURNISHED BEFORE ME, I FOUND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS EX CESSIVE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR SUPPORTING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE AT 20% OF EXPENDI TURE CLAIMED. THE SAME APPEARS TO BE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. BUT T HE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE RKECPL IS AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT, M/S. RKD. THE PRICES DECIDED BY THE RKD FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF WORK MAY BE EXCESSIVE BECAUSE THE WORK ORDER IS GIVEN BY WAY OF NOMINATION AND NOT THROUGH TENDER PROCESS. THE IMPU GNED TRANSACTION IS A RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION AND THE SAME IS A CONTROLLED TRANSACTION. ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COMPARABLE DATA IN SUPPORT OF THE RATES GIVEN TO ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN FOR THE WORK DONE IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UND ERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. TAKING THESE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION AT 7.5% OF RS.4,63,77,138/-, WHICH COM ES TO RS.34,78,285/-. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.57, 97, 143/- ON THIS COUNT. THE GROUND TAKEN IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS ERRED 7 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 IN DELETING THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE BANK ACC OUNT OF M/S. RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD . WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DUES FROM ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. RAJKIS HORE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. WITHOUT VERIFYING THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION DONE BY M/S. RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A S ALSO THE FACT THAT WHETHER M/S. RAJKISHORE ENGINEERING AND CO NSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD. HAD ADMITTED THIS AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME BEFORE ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES, 1962 IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THER EFORE, THE APPEAL MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY DET AILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A GROUND 8 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 CHALLENGING VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T.RUL ES, 1962, THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT WHEN ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES ARE FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS THE DUTY OF T HE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONFRONT THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS AND OBTAIN NECESSARY REPORTS FROM T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES AND VERACITY OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE DECIDING T HE ISSUES. NO DOUBT, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD POWERS TO EXAMI NE ISSUE ON ITS OWN BUT WHEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON ITS OWN WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AS SESSING OFFICER, THEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD GIVE DETAILED R EASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSIONS, OTHERWISE IT AMOUNTS TO VIOL ATION OF RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES, 1962. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A),WE FIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE, BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS 9 ITA NO.2229/CHNY/2019 DECIDED THE ISSUES WITHOUT CONFRONTING THOSE DOCU MENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REEXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR WHICH BOTH COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE AGREED . ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO RE-CONSIDE R THE ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 7. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ( G.M ANJUNATHA ) ' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 4 TH DECEMBER, 2020 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .