M/s. Neel Kanth Rubber Mills, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 255/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 25520914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• 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.255(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN; AAAFN6433A M/S. NEELKANTH RUBBER MILLS, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, JALANDHAR. WARD 1(3), JALADHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT.A. NO.288(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. NEELKANTH RU BBER MILLS, RANGE-1, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. ASSESSEE BY: SH. SANDEEP VIJH, CA DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING :04/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/04/2012 ORDER PER BENCH; THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAVE FILED THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 29.03.2010 RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS O F APPEAL BUT LATER ON THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON DATED 26.03.2012 REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A PPEAL I.E. GROUND NO. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND (GRO UND NO.7) OF APPEAL IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND I.E. GROUND NO.7 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FIRST DISP OSING OFF THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THROUGH AN ORDE R AND THEN TAKING UP THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THA T THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE FIRST DECIDED THE ISSUE ON AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY PASSING AN INDEPENDENT ORDER BUT THE SA ME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH IS CONTRAR Y TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IF THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY WANTS TO REJECT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DIS PUTE. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE APPLICATION DATED 09 TH DEC.,2009 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE 3 UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . HE REQUESTED THAT IF THIS BENCH ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THEN THE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE BE SET ASIDE TO THE AUTHORITY BELOW FOR APPRECIATION OF THE SAME BUT IF THIS BENCH IS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMI SSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AS REQUESTED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY THEN FIRST ORDER ON GROUND NO.7 ( WHICH IS ADDITIONAL GROUND) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, MAY BE DECIDED AND THE REMAINING GROUNDS MAY BE DECIDED AF TER THE DECISION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.7. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR, STATED THAT THERE I S NO NEED TO PASS SEPARATE ORDER ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE BEFORE TAKING UP THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.7 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED I N NOT FIRST DISPOSING OFF THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THROUGH A ORDER AND TH EN TAKING UP THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE A PPLICATION DATED 9 TH DEC., 2009 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AS WELL AS THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE 4 ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 9 TH DEC., 2009 UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH ARE MENTIO NED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 9.12.2009. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION DATED 9 TH DEC.,2009 AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH I S AT PARA 1.9 (PAGE 21 & 22) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROVISION SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEALS I.E. SR. NO. 7 REP RODUCED IN PARA NO. 3 OF PAGE 2 ABOVE BUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 WITHOUT PASSING SPEAKING OR DER. THEREFORE, WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE AS WELL AS ON MERITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET SET ASID E THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION DATED 09.12.2009 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 AFRESH BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 6.1. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE DECIS ION ON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE WI LL AFFECT THE RESULT OF THE 5 ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE, THEREFORE, WE ARE ALSO SETTIN G ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PASSING SPEAKING ORDER ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE INTERCONNECTED, THEREFORE, SAME IS ALSO SET ASIDE T O LD. C.I.T. (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH APRIL, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. NEELKANTH RUBBER MILLS, JALANDHAR . 2. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.