What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for denovo adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee sought to admit additional evidence, claiming it was not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to misrepresentation by their AR. The Revenue initially objected but alternatively agreed to a remand.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted by the ITAT and if the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of such evidence.

M/S. Nabadigant Educational… vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Pronounced: 27/01/2020

O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 6.8.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12.

Application of the assessee filed u/r 29 of ITAT, Rules, 1963

Ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee filed all possible and available documents before the Assessing officer but the AO did not entertain the same by stating that the cash flow statement has not been filed. He further submitted that as an abundant precaution, the assessee has filed this application under rule 29 of ITAT Rules praying that firstly, the assessee filed all relevant documentary evidence before the AO but the same was not taken on record and not considered resulting into additions and the appeal was also dismissed for want of the same. Therefore, the authorities below may kindly be directed to consider

P a g e 1 | 3 2/CTK /2 015 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 11- 12 the same and readjudicate the matter. Secondly, if it is presumed that the assessee did not file the same due to mis-representation by the AR, then all the relevant documentary evidence may kindly be admitted considering the bonafide of the assessee and the matter may be remanded to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication after considering the same admitted evidences and allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Ld D.R. strongly objected to the admission of additional evidence.

However, in all fairness, alternatively, he submits that if it is found just, proper and necessary, the department has no serious objection in remitting the case to the file of the AO to assessment stage

The documents in paper book ‘B’ are admitted as the same were not considered on record and the assessee was prevented on the reason of misrepresentation by ld A.R.

Therefore, application under rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 is admitted and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 27 /01/2020.

Sd/- sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 27 /01/2020 B.K.Parida, SPS

P a g e 2 | 3 2/CTK /2 015 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 11- 12 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Venkat Uday Bhaskar Borusu, , College Road, Jajput Road, Jajpur

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments