M/S. GORUR INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE

ORDER

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

by the assessee are as under :-

1. The appellate order passed by Ld. CIT (A) 2, Thane is contrary to facts of the case and against the provisions of law and passed with preconceive notion and best of conjectures and surmises and therefore requires to be quashed. 2.A). The Jt. Commissioner of Income tax panvel renge disallowed the payment amounting to Rs. 2,29,96,335/- made to four suppliers of pipes on the ground that assessee could not substantiate its claim by furnishing stock register and material inward details and relied upon the information received from the Sales Tax Department. Infact the joint commissioner of income tax panvel rang did not ask for providing such details of stock registers or material inward details during assessment proceedings.

B). When all such documents were produced, the Ld. CIT (A) 2 he did not take cognizance of the same and confirm at the addition. Thus, in these facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) 2 erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,29,96,335/-. 3. The appellant may be permitted to amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal or add a new ground of appeal any time before the hearing of appeal or during the course of appeal hearing.”

3. The assessee also raised the following additional ground :- “Assuming for the sake of argument but without admitting the alleged bogus purchases would be added back to the infrastructural profit of the assessee which is exempt u/s. 80IA(4)(b) read with clause (c) of the explanation to sec. 80IA of the Act, as held by the Bombay High Court in the case CIT v/s Gems Plus Jewellery Ltd., 233 CTR 248.”

4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above extracted additional ground and submitted that this is a legal issue raised by the assessee and the same should be admitted and adjudicated in preference to the original grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal. Mentioning that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,29,96,335/- for the assessment year 2010-11, ld. Counsel mentioned that the assessee is entitled to claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(b) of the Act.

5. Considering the above prayer of the assessee and legal nature of the ground, we find relevant to admit the said additional ground. Further, we find the claim of deduction was not made by the assessee and Assessing Officer had no occasion to take a view in the matter. As such, this issue was not raised before the lower authorities. It is in the fitness of the proceedings before us, an opportunity should be fairly granted to the Revenue for examining the said legal issue raising before us by way of additional ground and passed a speaking order and/or rejecting the said additional ground giving the reasons in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act.