THE ACIT GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE, GANDHIDHAM V. SOFTEL MACHINES LIMITED , GANDHIDHAM ( KUTCH)

ITA 175/RJT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, as the appellant, and Softel Machines Ltd., as the respondent, concerning the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary issues revolved around the deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 and other sections of the Income Tax Act, which were later deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) based on new evidences submitted by the assessee. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on grounds of violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as the new evidences were not subjected to a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's appeal, leading to the remittance of the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the new evidences and proper adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781713 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Jalan Timbers v. CIT(1997) 223ITR 11,17 (Gauh.), Shanker Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL DESAI; LD; SANJAY PUNGALIA; LD.
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Third party statement; TDS; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 43B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 175/RJT/2023 िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch-370201 Vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Plot-15/16, Survey No.320, Village: Nani Chirai, Tal: Bhachau, Gandhidham-Kutch-370140 PAN No. AAECS2783F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide order dated 29/03/2023, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 20/12/2018 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised the Revenue reads as under: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs.128,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act being unexplained share application money based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation or submission to various notices issued by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance, in respect of unexplained share application money, the Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the new evidence in form of details of share applicant such as PAN, address, Income Tax return, Computation of Income, personal balance sheets, Bank statement. These are new evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 2 submit comments / acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs.3,77,73,480/-, u/s 68 of the Act being unexplained cash credit through the unsecured loans based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation or submission to various notices issued by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance in respect of unsecured loans received, the Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the new evidence in form of details of share applicant such as PAN, address, Income Tax return, Computation of Income, personal balance sheets, Bank statement. These are new evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to submit comments /acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,26,56,927/-, being amortization of advertisement expenses based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance. In respect of expenses of amortized advertisement expenses, the Ld.CIT(A) also allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the new evidence. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not even reply to the Softel Machines Limited disallowance proposed and did not produce such details. These are new evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to submit comments / acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.23,88,973/- u/s. 43B of the Act based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comment of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sought for the report from the assessing officer to verify this aspect from records. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the assessee's contention that it was before the BIFR without giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to submit comments on the new evidence furnished by the assessee in appellate proceedings. Thus, these are new evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to submit comments / acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.5,39,512/- being disallowance of non-deduction of TDS for sales promotion & telemarketing expenses based on new evidences furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings without seeking comments of the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings for proposing the disallowance. In respect of non-deduction of TDS for sales promotion & telemarketing expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) also allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the new evidence. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not even reply to the disallowance proposed and did not produce such details. Thus, these are new evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the assessing officer to submit Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 3 comments/acceptability of the new evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. However, the same was not remanded before the assessing officer. 6. It is therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored to the above extent. 7. The findings of and the disallowance made by the assessing officer may be upheld in toto. 8. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee furnished its return of income on 17.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs. nil and shown current year loss of Rs.99,18,198/-. The assessee is mainly engaged in manufacturing and trading of kitchen appliances and consumers durables. The assessee`s case was taken up for compulsory manual scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.09.2017 and was duly served upon through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire, dated 19.12.2017 was issued and served upon through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 142(1) dated 05.04.2018 was issued and served upon through ITBA email facility. Further, upon change of incumbency, a notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 dated 05.07.2018, was issued and served upon through ITBA email facility. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 12.09.2018, 09.11.2018, 14.11.2018, 20.11.2018, 26.11.2018, 07.12.2018 and a show cause notice dated 13.12.2018 were issued and served upon through ITBA email facility. The assessee has not responded to the statutory notices sent. Hence assessment was completed by assessing officer based on available material on record. 4. In response to the statutory notices issued, the assessee has submitted incomplete details online. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 4 5. About unexplained share application money, the assessing officer noticed that in the audited copies of accounts, in the balance sheet, it was noticed that during the year the assessee has received large share application money from three parties amounting to Rs.1,28,00,000/- but no explanation or supporting documents like confirmation of accounts, supporting bank statements, name of the shareholders ITRs etc. have been filed by the assessee. Therefore, Assessing Officer had issued various notices to assessee for filing details related to share application money receipt for checking the source and authenticity of share application money and receipts. In response to the various notices, assessee has not filed any reply. As the share application money was received from three applicant, the assessee ought to have filed contra confirmation, identity proof and source of addition made to share application money as required u/s 68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties who gave share application money. In this case, the assessee- company ought to have furnished details with full proof /evidences of increase in shares capital. It should have furnished details such as name and address of the person, their confirmation letter, bank accounts/statements, PAN, mode, date and source of investment. However, assessee failed to file any of those details in spite of various opportunities. Therefore, the genuineness of the share capital, creditworthiness &identity of the person from whom such amount were received is not verifiable. It is the primary onus of the assessee to prove identity and creditworthiness of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, assessing officer observed that it is a settled law, that if there is an entry in the accounts of the assessee, which shows the receipt of a sum the burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such credit. In this regard, it has been held in number of case laws that this initial burden extends to establish – (1) Identity of the creditor/introducer, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 5 (2) Capacity of person who has invested money (3) Genuineness and correctness of the transaction 6. The Assessing Officer relied on many judgements which are mentioned in the assessment order. The assessing officer noted that the assessee has simply credited the amounts against each creditor (share capital provider). In support of his claim, the assessee has neither produced the creditors/persons nor furnished authentic evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction and identity as well as creditworthiness of the creditors. Thus, assessee has failed to prove the source of share capital received during the year. In order to establish the fact of the receipt of the credit as required u/s 68, the assessee must prove three important conditions, namely (1) the identity of the person, (2) the genuineness of the transaction, and (3) the capacity of the person giving the cash credit- Jalan Timbers v. CIT(1997) 223ITR 11,17 (Gauh.). It is necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a credit in his books of accounts. Such proof includes proof of the identity of his creditors, the capacity of such creditors to advance the money and lastly, the genuineness of the transaction. These things must be proved prima facie by the assessee and only after the assessee has adduced evidence to establish prima facie the aforesaid, the onus shifts on the department-[Shanker Industries v. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal.)]. Thus, in view of the above discussion and fact of the case, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has failed to furnish the required details to support its claim and to discharge the primary onus cast u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, share capital received during the year of Rs.1,28,00,000/-, was held to the cash credit of assessee u/s 68 of the Act as assessee has failed to prove genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom share capital was received during the year and therefore was added to the total income of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 6 7. The assessing officer further noticed that the submissions and books of accounts that the assessee has accepted unsecured loans from various parties during the year amounting to Rs.3,77,73,480/- as follows: 7.1 The assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 07.12.2018 to provide the bank statement of the parties from whom the unsecured loan is received to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee did not submit any submission to the said loan received. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 7 7.2 Therefore, Assessing Officer observed that assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. In view of the above, the amount of Rs.3,77,73,480/- was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 8. About disallowance u/s.43B of the Act, the assessing officer, while perusing Form no.3CD of Tax Audit Report, it was noticed that as per Col. No.26(i)(B)(b) the assessee has incurred following liabilities by debiting P & L account, however, assessee had not paid the said liabilities on or before the date of filing of ITR; 8.1 The assessee was asked vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.12.2018 that why the above amount should not be disallowed in view of the provision of section 43B of the Act. The assessee has not given any submission. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.23,88,973/- was disallowed by the assessing officer in view of the provision u/s 43B of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. 9. About disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS for sales promotion & telemarketing expenses, the assessing officer, on perusal of the P & L account and submissions filed during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee has claimed sales promotion & telemarketing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 8 expenses. The assessee was requested to explain as to why the 30% of the said sales promotion & telemarketing expenses of Rs. 17,98,373/- i.e. Rs.5,39,512/- should not be disallowed as the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on the said sales promotion & telemarketing expenses. No explanation is offered by the assessee in this regard. As per the provisions of the Act the assessee is required to deduct TDS for the sales promotion & telemarketing expenses, since the assessee has failed to deduct the same. Hence the amount of Rs.5,39,512/- was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessing officer. 10. About disallowance on account of TDS deducted but not deposit till the due date of filling return of income u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessing officer, on perusal of the audit report it was noted that the assessee has deducted TDS on the amount of Rs.2,29,58,699/- for various expenditure but same was not deposited till the due date of filling of Return. As per the provisions of the Act the assessee was required to deduct TDS and deposit the same till due date of filling of return of income. Since the Assessee has failed to do so, the amount of Rs.68,87,610/- being 30% of the total amount was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 200(1) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee. 11. About disallowance of amortization of advertisement expenses, the assessing officer noticed from the P & L Account, that the assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.1,26,56,927/- as amortization of advertisement expenses. When the assessee was called for further details the assessee has not replied for the same. Hence in absence of details, it was not clear how the advertisement expenses is amortized and claimed by the assessee. Hence the same was disallowed by the assessing officer. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee, carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 9 assessing officer, by accepting the additional evidences. The additional evidences were submitted by the assessee, during the appellate proceedings, before the learned CIT (A). The ld.CIT(A) did not send these additional evidences to the assessing officer, to examine them and to call for a remand report. Therefore, revenue is in appeal before us. 13. Learned DR for the Revenue, vehemently argued that assessee submitted additional evidences before the learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings, in respect of all the additions made by the assessing officer, in the assessment order. Therefore, an opportunity should be given to the assessing officer to examine these additional evidences. In respect of Ground No.1, raised by the Revenue, ld.DR stated that assessee did not furnish any explanation or submission against various notices issued by the Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings, in respect of unexplained share application money and Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, based on the new evidences in the form of details of share applicants, such as PAN No., Address, Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, personal Balance Sheet, Bank Statement. These new evidences which were produced before the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have put before the Assessing Officer to submit comments, on the new evidences. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not call remand report from the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The Ld. DR submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the first assessing officer issued the notice dated 05.04.2018 and only few details were submitted by the assessee, which were not sufficient to frame the assessment order. Before the second Assessing Officer, when he took the charge on 05.07.2018, no compliance was made by the assessee, before the second Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR for the Revenue took us through, Para 5.5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that ld.CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences / new evidences and these new evidences / Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 10 additional evidences were admitted by ld.CIT(A) without calling the remand report. In respect of Ground Nos 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue, the Ld. DR submitted that assessee did not furnish any explanation during the assessment proceedings. In respect of amortized, advertisement expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the new evidences. Apart from these facts the explanations regarding BIFR were not filed before the Assessing Officer, in respect of ground No.4 raised by the revenue. About Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue, Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has admitted additional evidences, therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to call the remand report in respect of these additional evidences. 14. The ld.DR also submitted written submission before the Bench and stated that in the paper book filed by the assessee, on 22/05/2025, at para 2, it is submitted that the assessee filed all the submission in hard copy before the office of the Id assessing officer. On perusal of the acknowledged covering letter submitted by the assessee (copy enclosed) it is observed that the assessee has only filed copy of IT return of the directors and identical details were also filed on e- filing portal (screen shot enclosed). But it has not filed the ledger account, confirmation, bank statements of the share applicants as well as the loan creditors. Also, the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence in support of claim of expenses on account of amortization of advertisement expenses, section 43B, payments, BIFR letter, TDS payments etc. In fact, the assessee could not have filed these details without show-cause notice (dated 13/12/2018). So, accepting assessee's submission that it has filed everything before the assessing officer on 5/5/2018 is beyond imagination. As per the screen shot of e-Filing portal submitted by the assessee, the assessee has filed only one submission on 5/5/2018 in response to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 5/4/2018. As per the assessment order, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 11 there was a change of incumbent and the new assessing officer sent first notice on 5/7/2018, thereafter 6 notices were sent on various dates and a final show cause notice was issued on 13/12/2018. Incidentally, all the 7 notices and the show cause notice remained unanswered and this fact is admitted by the assessee in his paper book. In para 4 and 5 on page 1 & 2 of the paper book, the assessee has expressly admitted that \"the assessee could not make compliance online on e- filing portal and e-proceedings facility\". Therefore, in such a scenario question of submission of evidences/reply before the assessing officer does not arise at all. Whatever assessee has filed is only as per submission filed on e-filing portal on 5/5/2018 and the same does not contain the relevant details as allegedly claimed by the assessee. Also, the submission filed in hard copy before the office of the Id assessing officer does not contain the relevant details as allegedly claimed by the assessee.The above facts clearly show that the CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1961. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department should be sustained and the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside. 15. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before the Bench ground wise and stated that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has made the compliance. However, during the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted some clarificatory documents, which should not be treated as additional evidences. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) did not send these additional evidences to the file of Assessing Officer, for his examination and submit the remand report. Hence, order passed by the learned CIT(A), on merit, should be upheld. 16. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 12 the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We have examined the assessment records/ assessment folder and noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted only following documents and evidences, before the assessing officer, which are reproduced below: “ACIT, CIR-1, GANDHIDHAM Sub: Assessment for the A.Y-2016-17 Dear Madam, Further to our personal hearing on 29/11/2018, Please find submitted here with physical copies of the submission made by us online on 05/04/2018 for your reference. Documents enclosed:- 1. Copy of point wise reply of notice 2. Copy of Audited Balance sheet of F.Y. 2015-16 3. Copy of ITR F.Y. 2015-16 4. Copy of ITR of Director Mr. Analkumar Jain F.Y. 2015-16 5. Copy of ITR of Director Mrs. Bhairavi A. Jain FY. 2015-16 6. Copy of ITR of Director Mrs. Anita Jain F.Y. 2015-16 7. Copy a Last Assessment Order for F.Y.2014-15 8. Copy of Foreign Gain/Loss Account for F.Y. 2015-16 9. Copy of TDS challans and Returns For F.Y. 2015-16 Please find the above documents in order and kindly acknowledge the same. Thanking You, For Softel” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 13 17. During the course of hearing, the Bench has instructed the Ld. CIT-DR to submit the assessment records before the Bench for verification of the fact whether assessee has filed additional evidences, during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT-DR produced the assessment records before the Bench. We have inspected the assessment records and order sheet of the assessing officer. We did not find the following details and documents in the assessment folder, which are reproduced below: (i) Details regarding Share Application Money Paper Book Page No. 22-48 (ii) Documents of unsecured loan received from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Paper Book Page No. 49-55 (iii) Documents of unsecured loan received from Anil Jain Paper Book Page No. 56-71 (iv) Documents of unsecured loan received from Anita Jain Paper Book Page No. 72-76 (v) Documents of unsecured loan received from Bhairavi Jain Paper Book Page No. 77-82 (vi) Documents of unsecured loan from First Choice Properties Paper Book Page No. 83-120 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 14 (vii) Documents of unsecured loan received from Jaidev Balwani Paper Book Page No. 121-122 (viii) Documents of unsecured loan received from MD Ahuja Paper Book Page No. 123-164 (ix) Documents of unsecured loan received from Rajeev S. Jain Paper Book Page No. 165-169 (x) Documents of unsecured loan received from Rauli Jain Paper Book Page No. 170-172 (xi) Documents of unsecured loan received from Vijay Jain Paper Book Page No. 173-179 (xii) Documents regarding amortization of advertisement expenses Paper Book Page No. 180-201 (xiii) Copy of the registration certificate of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) Paper Book Page No. 202-203 17.1 Therefore, we note that the above documents and evidences were not on the file of the Assessing Officer. However, we note that the assessee has submitted these above documents and evidences, during the appellate proceedings, first time before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not send these documents and evidences to the Assessing Officer for his comment and to call the remand report. Therefore, it is clearly a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The above evidences cannot be treated as clarificatory documents/ evidences, as claimed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. The above noted, additional evidences are the basic and primary documents/ evidences which were to be examined by the assessing officer, however, ld.CIT(A) did not send these evidences to the file of the assessing officer for his examination and to furnish remand report. 18. This is pertinent for the reason that even if the additional evidences are admitted but opportunity is not given to the assessing officer, and if the appeal is allowed by the CIT(A) by taking cognizance of the additional evidences, the Department will take ground before the Tribunal that there has been violation of principle of natural justice by not giving opportunity to assessing officer thereby violating the provision contained in Rule 46A of the Rules. The Tribunal, if found correct, without going into the merits of the case would simple set aside the matter Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 175/Rjt/2023 ACIT vs. Softel Machines Ltd. Page | 15 to the file of the lower authorities to examine additional evidences and an opportunity should be given to the assessing officer to examine these additional evidences. 19. Therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer to examine these documents and evidences, hence, we remit entire lis ( appeal) of the assessee, back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with a direction to send these above documents and evidences to the Assessing Officer to call a proper remand report and after taking the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) should also take the rejoinder from the assessee, on such remand report, and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to take the remand report from the Assessing Officer and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. Statistical purposes the appeal of the Revenue is treated to be allowed. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 30/09/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "