THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR vs. INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Heard Ms Susan Linhares for the appellant and Mr Thakkar, who appears along with Mr P. Talaulikar and Ms Linette Rodrigues for the respondent.

Ms Linhares, at the outset, submits that she is not pressing the substantial question of law (III) raised in paragraph 8 of the appeal memo because this question does not arise in the present appeal, though it arises in Tax A ppeal No.9/2023 .

Ms Linhares, however, presses the following two substantial questions of law in support of this appeal:

Ms Linhares submits that the Com missioner of Appeals admitted additional evidence purporting to exercise powers under Rule 46 A ( 3 ) of the Income Tax Rules, but no opportunity was given to the Revenue to deal with these documents or produce any documents in rebuttal. She submits that thi s was contrary to provisions of Rule 46 A ( 3 ) . Therefore, a substantial question of law (I) as framed arise s in this appeal.

From the perusal of the record, we find that no additional evidence was allowed to be produced. The Assessing Officer had made the addition of ₹10,89,334/ - (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty - Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty - Four only) based upon the evaluation of the material before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) on evaluating the very same material disagreed with the Assessing Officer. The ITAT agreed with the Commissioner of Appeals. Therefore, this is not a c ase of any violatio n of Rule 46 A(3) ,

Besides, Mr Thakkar pointed out that the addition was based upon misconstruing the A ssessee ’s case. He pointed out that merely because some contribution s had been made to temples, etc. , t he Assessee had not claimed any exemption under Section 80 -G of the Income Tax Act. He pointed out t hat these were routine revenue expenditures incurred by the A ssessee after explaining the factual background in which such contributions were made. This explanation was accepted by the Commissioner ( A ppeals) , and the ITAT upheld the Commissioner ’s view . Accordingly, the first question , as proposed , does not arise in this appeal.

In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, again , we are not too sure whether this was a case of admission of any additional evidence. However, even assuming that this was so, the Tribunal has decided the matter base d upon the decision of this C ourt in Mah indra A nd Mahindra Ltd. V/s. Comm issioner of Income Tax 1 . The Hon ’ble Supreme Court upheld this decision in the case of Commissioner V/s. Ma hi ndra An d Mahindra Ltd. 2 .

This Court and the Hon ’ble Supreme Court have held that the benefit as contemplated by Section 28(iv) of the Income T ax Act has to be some benefit other than a benefit in the shape of money or cash. The 1 (2003) 261 ITR 501 2 (2018) 404 ITR 1 (SC)

In the present case, there is no dispute that there was no benefit other than in the form of money alleged to be received by the Assessee . Even the case of the Revenue was that the Assessee had accepted certain advances for which no proper explanation was furnished. Therefore, the issue of admission or non -admission of additional evidence is quite irrelevant since Section 28(iv) contemplates benefits in some form other than money or cash. Therefore, even if the additional evidence or the new documents all egedly admitted at the appellate stage were to be completely excluded from consideration, there would be no difference, and the Assesses ’s case would have to be accepted based upon the interpretation of Section 28(iv) in Mahindra and Mahindra (Supra) .

Acco rdingly, even the second substantial question of law , as proposed , does not arise or , in any case , would have to be answered against the Revenue.

For the above reasons, we decline to admit this appeal.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order for costs.