PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED, JALANDHAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 516/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0256 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT-CC-1-JALAN DHAR /I.T.A. NO.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMNRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . .. . . .. . ./ ././ ./ I.T.A NO.516/ASR/2018 / // / A.Y.:2008-09 M/S. PUNJAB IRON A N D STEEL COMPANY LIMITED, G T ROAD JALANDHAR PAN:AAACP 9849B V S . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JALANDHAR APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY NONE /REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR, CIT (D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING: 18.1 2.2019 $ /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 18.12.2019 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, LUD HIANA (IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 23.08.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008- 09. 2. GROUND NO. 1: STATES THAT THE CIT (A) FELL INTO GRA VE ERROR BY NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE JUST FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SPECIFY PARTICULAR C LAUSE OF RULE 46A (1). 3. NONE HAD APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WITH T HE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. CIT (D.R.) AND GOING THROUGH RECORDS, IT IS NOTICED PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT-CC-1-JALAN DHAR /I.T.A. NO.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 PAGE 2 OF 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 A WITH A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE CONFIRMATION FOR MRS. VINOD KHANNA, HER S WORN IN AFFIDAVIT, COPY OF PAN, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DULY CONFIRMED BY MRS. VINOD KHANNA. HOWEVER, THE CIT (A) HAD DID NOT ADMIT THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER WHICH CLAUSE OF RULE 46A(1 ) THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS AS NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON ORDER OF CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED UNDER RULE 46A BEFORE CI T (A) ARE NECESSARY FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL A ND WOULD CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SUCH EVIDENCE MAY ULTIMATELY T URN OUT TO THE BENEFIT OF EITHER TAXPAYER OR THE REVENUE. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF HON`BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. TEXT HUNDRED INDIA (P)LTD.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (DEL): 197 T AXMAN 128(DEL) : 51 DTR 241(DEL) WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 13. THE AFORESAID CASE LAW CLEARLY LAYS DOWN A NEAT PRINCIP LE OF LAW THAT DISCRETION LIES WITH THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONCE THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMS THE O PINION THAT DOING SO WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE M ATTER. THIS CAN BE DONE EVEN WHEN APPLICATION IS FILED BY ONE OF THE P ARTIES TO THE APPEAL AND IT NEED NOT TO BE A SUO MOTU ACTION OF T HE TRIBUNAL. THE AFORESAID RULE IS MADE ENABLING THE TRIBUNAL TO ADM IT THE ADDITIONAL PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT-CC-1-JALAN DHAR /I.T.A. NO.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 PAGE 3 OF 4 EVIDENCE IN ITS DISCRETION IF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS TH E VIEW THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DO SUBSTA NTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THE PROCEDURE I S HANDMADE OF JUSTICE AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CHO KED ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME INADVERTENT ERROR OR OMISSION ON THE PART O F ONE OF THE PARTIES TO LEAD EVIDENCE AT THE APPROPRIATE STAGE. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PARTY INTENDING TO LEAD EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO LEA D SUCH AN EVIDENCE AND THAT THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE MATERIAL BEARING ON THE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ENDS OF JUSTICE DEMAND ADMISSION OF SUCH AN EVIDENCE, THE TRIBUNAL CAN PASS AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND R ELYING ON AFORESAID DECISION, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT (A) TO AD MIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE ALL THE I SSUE INVOLVED AFRESH. THE CIT (A) IS THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL WHICH MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE CIT (A) MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER M AKING SUCH ENQUIRIES AS NECESSARY AS DEEM FIT AND REQUIRED FUR THER EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS SET-ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER AFFORDING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. V. DCIT-CC-1-JALAN DHAR /I.T.A. NO.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 PAGE 4 OF 4 BEING HEARD. NEVERTHELESS, TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE IN THE ENQUIRY IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISH RE QUIRED BEFORE CIT (A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.201 9. SD/- SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AMRITSAR: DATED: DECEMBER 18, 2019/OPM COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A) / ITAT (DR)/ GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR