M/S. INBOX PICTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the very outset, I noticed that the assessee filed an application for production of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the contents of which are as under:

On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Department contested the said application.

After hearing both the parties on the application, I find that the assessee has explained the reasons for filing the application for production of additional evidence at this stage on the ground that he seeks to produce the ledger confirmation, which is enclosed as Annexure-B in the Paper Book and constitutes a core document to substantiate the grounds raised by the assessee and to counter the additions made by the AO. In this regard, it was submitted that the AO had not afforded sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce the said evidence and had thus proceeded to pass the assessment order in the absence of the ledger confirmation, which is now being relied upon by the assessee.

I find that although during the assessment proceedings the assessee had filed other documents, the AO was not satisfied with the documents already produced. The Ld. CIT(A), in his findings, had specifically mentioned that the ledger confirmation was not filed by the assessee. I also noticed that the assessee had not made any representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order at paragraph 4.6, categorically mentioned that, except for filing the appeal in Form No. 35 along with the grounds of appeal and statement of facts, the assessee had neither filed the necessary documents nor pursued the appellate proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of the necessary documentary evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal and dismissed the same. Since the document now placed on record by the assessee goes to the root of the case, no prejudice will be caused if the ledger confirmation is taken on record as additional evidence.

Thus, considering the principles laid down in the cases of V.K. Ahuja Vs. CIT (Delhi HC) and NTPC Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), I allow this application and admit the ledger confirmation placed on record as Annexure-B as additional evidence. Since the said document requires factual verification, and also considering the fact that the assessee did not effectively represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A), as specifically recorded in paragraph 4.6 of the impugned order, I set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after considering the additional evidence and, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Before parting, I make it clear that the decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the appellate proceedings.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.