IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2516 /M UM /20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 TRIBHUVAN JEWELLERS LTD. KOHINOOR APARTMENT, N.C KELKAR RD, DADAR(W), MUMBAI, PIN - 400028. PAN: AABCT9019N VS. ITO - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANANT N. PAI, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMIT PRATAP SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.01 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .01 . 20 20 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT A PPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO AY 2008 - 09 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES AND ON MERITS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR DR EW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE APPLICATION DATED 26.11.2018 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THE LD. AR PRAYED BE FOR E THE BENCH THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND AO DUE TO SEVERAL REASO NS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.2516/MUM/2017 TRIBHUVAN JEWELLERS LTD. 2 THESE EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS H ONBLE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION . THE LA AR REQUESTED BEFORE THE BENCH TO DECIDE THE APPEAL HERE OR ALTERNATIVELY RESTORE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE OR BEFORE 6 THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO PRAY BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT TO ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES . THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDINGLY THE SAME KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUS ING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE H AS BEARING ON THE ISSUE S AS RAISED BEFORE US . T HESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW IN THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THESE EVIDENCES SO THAT THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AS PER FACTS AND LAW. WE , THEREFORE, RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACTS AND LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. 5. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.01 . 20 20 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 .01 . 2020 . RS , SR. P.S. ITA NO.2516/MUM/2017 TRIBHUVAN JEWELLERS LTD. 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. DATE INITIAL WHETHER DICTATION PAD ENCL OSED WITH THE FILE : YES/NO (AS THE ORDER HAS BEEN TYPED WITH THE HELP OF MANUSCRIPT) 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND M EMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER