M/s. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 3584/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5125 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO. 3584/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S.JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD. 5601/I, PHASE-2M GIDC ESTATE VATVA AHMEDABAD- 382 445 / VS. THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-2(1)(2) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACJ 7664 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KARAN SHAH, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 11/01/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/02/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)2, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-2 /539/DC. CIR.2(1)(2) 2014-15 DATED 16.10.2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 16.02.2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. ITA NO.3584/AHD/2015 M/S.JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 2 - 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,64, 70,079/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE D REW OUR ATTENTION ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED ALONG WITH THE ADMIS SION OF THESE EVIDENCES UNDER THE RULE 29 OF I.T.A.T. RULES, 1963 AND ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ARE CRUCI AL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON HAND. 4. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS SUBSE QUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FI LE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ITS CLAIM OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DUE TO SOME ADMIN ISTRATIVE PROBLEM IN THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT. 4.1 THE LD.AR FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION E XPENSES WERE ALSO INCURRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS BY MAKING PAYMEN T TO THE SAME PARTIES. THE LD.AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FILED A CHART DEM ONSTRATING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO DIFFERENT PARTIES OVER A P ERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE PRAYED TO US TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ITA NO.3584/AHD/2015 M/S.JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 3 - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F THE LAW AND AFTER CONSIDERING THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR OPPOSED FOR THE AD MISSION OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOWER A UTHORITIES AFFORDED THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE PROCEE DINGS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES APPEARING FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE TH AT THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,64,70,079/- WHICH IS A QUITE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUN T. THUS, IN CASE, WE REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES, THERE WILL BE A HUGE LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WILL CERTAINLY BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE PREFERRED OVER T HE TECHNICAL HITCHES. 7.1. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE REFERENCE TO THESE ADD ITIONAL DOCUMENTS IS ESSENTIAL TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, 1963. 7.2. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT OUT OF THE PLACE TO MENTI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . ITA NO.3584/AHD/2015 M/S.JAGSON COLORCHEM LTD. VS. DCIT ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 4 - 7.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/02/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD