Worley Parsons Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3071/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3003 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV CHAUDHARY; NITIN BANSAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3071/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S WORLY PARSONS ENGINEERING VS. ITO, WARD-18(3) , (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI C/O INTECSA ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 5 TH FLOOR, B WING, I-THINK TECHNO CAMPUS, OFF POKHRAN ROAD NO. 2, THANE (WEST), THANE MAHARASTARA -400607 (PAN: AAACW4795P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJEEV CHAUDHARY, ADV. AND SH. NITIN BANSAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR . DR PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 31.3.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI, PER TAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY 6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. BUT THE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ONLY ARGUED THE GROUND NO. 2 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH 2 APPLICATION DATED 19.8.2010 UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES RUNNING INTO 10 PAGES ALONGWITH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RUNNING INTO 48 P AGES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE REGARDING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 89,39,106/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER SEEKING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, LD. FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REJECTED ALL THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S BY HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT Q UALIFY FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. HE DRAW OUR AT TENTION TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) UNDER RULED 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 CONTAINING PAGES A-1 TO A-1 0 AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ATTACHED ALOGNWITH THE APPLICATION PAGE 1 TO 48 OF SMALL PAPER BOOK AND STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY ESSENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE AO AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F ILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE 3 FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER EXAMINING AND ENQUIRING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIG HTLY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FULED UNDER RULE 46A DATED 19.8.2010 BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THIS APPLICATION. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE IN SO FAR AS THE PURPOSE AND SOURCE OF SUCH RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. S INCE THE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE RBI ON MARCH 12, 2010 I.E. POST CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3), THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WAS PREVENTED BY THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PROVIDING THIS EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GONE TH OROUGHLY THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATI ON U/RULE 46A AND HAS ALSO NOT GONE THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILE D BY THE ASSSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE PROCURED AFTER PASSING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER I.E. 4 24.12.2009 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE M ENTIONING THE DATE OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 DATED 19.8.2010 AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES C ONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 48 I.E. FC-GPR RETURN SUBMITTED WITH RBI; INTIMATIO N MADE TO RBI OF RECEIPT FO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY; CERTIFICATE FRO M COMPANY SECRETARY; CERTIFICATE FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR VALUATION OF SHARES; CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN BOARD MEETING ; RBI APPROVAL FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES; RBI APPROVAL FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES; RBI LETTER DATED 29.12.2010; RESPONSE DATED 24.2.3010; RETURN OF ALL OTMENT AND BOARD RESOLUTION; CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM WORLEY US FRAN CE PTY LTD., AUSTRALIA; SPECIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PARENT COMPANY FOR YEAR ENDED JUNE 2007 AND COMPANY TAX RETURN OF WOR LEY PARSONS GROUP. 5.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS W RONGLY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DES ERVE TO BE ADMITTED AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REMIT BACK THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMI NING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE FULL OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30/05/2017. SD/- SD/ (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/05/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITATTRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR