M/s. Russian Technology Centre (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4931/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58434 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDESH GARG DITDR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4931 & 4934/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 06-07) RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, CIT( A) 13, A-1/20, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AACCR7102D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDESH GARG, DIT(DR) ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI DATED 21.9.2011 AND 30.9.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2006-07, RESPECTIVELY. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND INVOLVE ID ENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES. THEREFORE, WE DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS IN A SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE ALSO RAI SED JURISDICTION ISSUE IN REGARD TO ISSUING PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AFTER CONDUCTING SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 28.2.2007. BUT, AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THESE APPEALS, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADVOCATE, HAS WITHD RAWN SUCH GROUND FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND BY MAKING ENDORSEMENT ON THE MEMO OF GROU NDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR GROUND FOR BOTH THE YEARS, HAS PRAYED FO R DISMISSAL OF SUCH GROUND AS WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. LD.DR. DID NOT OBJECT TO SU CH MOVE OF THE ASSESSEES LD. I.T.A. NOS.4931 & 4934/DEL./2011 (A.YS. : 2001-02 & 2006-07) 2 COUNSEL. AS SUCH, JURISDICTION ISSUE RAISED IS DIS MISSED FOR BOTH THE YEARS AS WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. 4. IN REGARD TO OTHER IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED IN B OTH THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT CONSIDER ING AND ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHIC H WAS DULY FILED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AL SO SOUGHT, BUT IN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITYS ORDERS FOR BOTH THESE YEARS, SUCH PLEA RAISED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH AND ADJUDICATED UP ON. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE MATTER BACK ON HIS FILE EITHER WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADMIT SUCH APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS AFRESH OR TO CONSIDER THE APPL ICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS. ASSESSEES LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINC E LOT OF INCONVENIENCE HAS ALSO BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT CONSIDERING AND ADJU DICATING THE ISSUE IN RELATION TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THERE WILL BE A SECOND ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, SUITAB LE COST SHOULD ALSO BE AWARDED IN THIS CASE. 5. LD.DR. WHILE OBJECTING TO SUCH PRELIMINARY OBJEC TION RAISED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THESE APPEALS ALONG WITH OTHER APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT YEARS AND IN THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH HAD IDENTICAL FACTS AND SIMILAR ISSUE, HAS DE CLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GIVING ELABORATE REASONS. IN THE CASES IN HAND ALS O, HE HAS NOT ALLOWED THE ADMISSION OF I.T.A. NOS.4931 & 4934/DEL./2011 (A.YS. : 2001-02 & 2006-07) 3 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSI ON AS DRAWN BY CIT(A) IS LOOKED INTO CAREFULLY, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT APPLICATION F OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE CIT(A). IT WAS TH US PLEADED FOR CONSIDERING AND DECIDING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ON MERIT BY REJECTING THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT DURING THE FIRST APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT( A), ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WI TH FRESH MATERIAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFI CER, WHO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT, COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE A LSO FILED OBJECTION TO SUCH REMAND REPORT, BUT WHILE DECIDING THESE APPEALS, THE CIT(A ) HAS NOT CONSIDERED AND DECIDED SUCH REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED BY LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH ACTION IS FOUND TO BE VIO LATIVE OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE F ACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASID E THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSI DER AND DECIDE SUCH APPLICATION OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM A FRESH AND TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AS PROVIDED UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NOS.4931 & 4934/DEL./2011 (A.YS. : 2001-02 & 2006-07) 4 7. AS A RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE HEA RING ON 10.01.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : JANUARY 10, 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT