IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.23/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SOHANLAL GUPTA, C/O GSF STEELS PVT LTD., PANPOSH ROAD, ROURKELA. VS. ITO, WARD - 1, ROURKELA PAN/GIR NO. ABDPG 9390 D (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AS SESSEE BY : DAMODAR PATI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 /05/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 /05/ 2017 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR G ADALE, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK , DATED 24.11.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. AT THE O UTSET, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 18 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES FOR ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH ARE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ARGUED THAT THE SAID ISSUE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND LEGALLY BINDING IN NATURE AND PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE EVIDENCES AND THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS THERE WAS N O 2 ITA NO.23/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE PLACED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK VOL.I (PAGE 1 TO 671) AND VOL.II (PAGE 672 TO 1105). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED TO THE ADMIS SION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND CERTAINLY LEGAL IN NATURE AND T HE SAME HAS TO BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (299 ITR 383)(SC). FURTHER, B OTH T HE PARTIES HAVE DEMONSTRATE D THE IMPORTANCE OF DOCUMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE . WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS , WHICH HAVE VALUABLE IMPACT ON DECISION OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF RENDERING SUB STANTIAL JUSTICE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUTFO RTH HIS GRIEVANCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES A ND EXAMINE THE FACTS AND PASS THE ORDER ON MERITS IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND IT IS N EEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED REASONABLE AN D PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUBMITTING THE DETAILS AND COMPLETING THE ASSESSMEN T. 3 ITA NO.23/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 5. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 /05/2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S SAINI ) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 24 /05/2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SOHANLAL GUPTA, C/O GSF STEELS PVT LTD., PANPOSH ROAD, ROURKELA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 1, ROURKELA 3. THE CIT, CUTTACK 4. PR.CIT, CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//