M/s. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2506/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97351 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM PRAKASH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 506 /DEL/201 4 A.Y. : 20 10 - 1 1 M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT VS. J CIT, RANGE - 2 UNION LTD., MUZAFFARNAGAR C/O MASHKOOR AHMAD, ADVOCATE, 10 - DR. SURESH MARKET, BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUZAFFARNGAR (PAN : AAAJC0343A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. PREM PRAKASH, ADV. & SH. ASHISH AGGARWAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 8 - 2015 DATE OF ORDER : 1 0 - 9 - 2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , MUZAFFARNAGAR D ATED 29 . 1. 201 4 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 1 1 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE ORDER IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD. 2. THAT CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT ANY BASE. 2 3. THAT CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM AND ALSO CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE HIM. 4. THAT CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN APPLYING THE RULING OF HON BLE SC IN THE CASE OF TOTGAR S SALE SOCIETY VS. ITO WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN APPELLANT S CASE. 5. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE AT RS. 4,01,450/ - U/S. 57. 6. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION AT RS. 50,000/ - U/S. 80P(2)(A)(II). 7. THAT THE A PPELLANT CRAVES YOUR LEAVE TO MAKE ADDITION, DELETION OR MODIFICATION OF ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED, HENCE, WE ARE NOT RE PEATED THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH IS VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE HIM. HE R EQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE CASE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION , UNDER THE LAW AND AFTER ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS AVAILABLE WIT H ME, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1963, BECAUSE THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN A HASTE MANNER A ND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS CONTRA RY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE AND TO RENDER THE JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO AND AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, UNDER THE LAW AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 / 9 /201 5 . S D / - [ H.S. SIDHU ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 1 0 / 9 /201 5 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5