DCIT -I, Kanpur V. M/s Comexcell Technologies, Kanpur

ITA 345/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 34523714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAR NATH GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 345/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 DCIT - 1 KANPUR V. M/S COMEXCELL TECHNLOLOGIES LG - 17A , SOMDUTT PLAZA, THE MALL KANPUR PAN: AAAFC6378F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. R. K. RAM, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. AMAR NATH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING: 09.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.11.2011 O R D E R PER S UNIL KUMAR YADAV : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 14,81,955 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED COMMISSION PAID ON SALES TO VARIOUS PERSONS AFTER ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46 A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL, THE LD. D.R. HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUB M I TTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE : - 2 - : PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. D.R. WERE CONFRONTED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HE CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CON FRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACTED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO HIS FILE WITH TH E DIRECTION TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR RE - ADJUDICATION IN TE RMS O F DIRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2011. SD/ - SD/ - [B. R. JAIN ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER D ATED: 16.11.2011 JJ: 1411 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR