PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR V. M/S. PAWANJAY SPONGE IRON LTD.

ITA/83/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur as the appellant and M/s. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Rourkela as the respondent. The appellant sought to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, which pertained to the assessment year 2013-14. The core issue was the alleged violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the Commissioner (Appeals), who deleted an addition of \\u20b9 7.7 crores without granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the documents in question were not new and had been previously considered, thus upholding the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 728216 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R P KAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH KEDIA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2013-14; Condonation of delay; Income tax appellate tribunal; Substantial questions of law; Violation of Rule 46A
• Section: 46A

Judgement Text

" ITA no.83 of 2022 and I.A. no.56 of 2023 Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.83 of 2022 And I.A. No.56 of 2023 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur ..... Appellant versus- M/s. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Rourkela ..... Respondent Advocates appeared in this case: For appellant : Mr. Avinash Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) For respondent : Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment : 16th December, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondent–assessee and submits, his instructions are not to oppose the application for condonation of reported delay at 91 days. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of applicant/appellant-revenue. ITA no.83 of 2022 and I.A. no.56 of 2023 Page 2 of 3 2. Perused the application. We accept causes shown in appreciation of fair stand taken by Mr. Kar. The delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. 3. Mr. Kedia submits, revenue seeks admission of the appeal on substantial questions of law arising from order dated 21st January, 2022 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in ITA no.404/CTK/2018 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. He submits, there was violation of rule 46A in Income Tax Rules, 1962 made by the Commissioner (Appeals), to delete the addition of ₹ 7.7 crores. 4. On query made Mr. Kar refers to paragraphs-3 and 10 in impugned order. Paragraph-3 is reproduced below. “3.The only issue agitated by the revenue in the grounds of appeal but the ld CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,70,00,000/- violating the provisions of rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 in not granting opportunity to the AO to rebut the additional evidence relied upon by the ld CIT (A).” 5. We see from paragraph-10 findings of fact made by the Tribunal. It said, before the Assessing Officer (AO) documents were produced regarding the addition made. The documents were not properly considered by the AO, in making the addition. The ITA no.83 of 2022 and I.A. no.56 of 2023 Page 3 of 3 Tribunal goes on to say similar documents were furnished by the assessee along with written submission before the Commissioner (Appeals). We put question to the parties on whether similar meant additional new documents. The answer is in the negative. As such, the Tribunal being last forum on finding of facts, found that no new documents were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Rule 46A provides for circumstances, in which additional documents can be produced before the Appellate Authority. In this case we do not need to go into the circumstances because no new documents were produced. 7. No question, let alone a substantial question of law arises from impugned order. 8. The appeal is dismissed. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge asant Jyostna/Radha Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Dec-2024 18:45:24 Signature Not Verified "