ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. AMBIKA TRADING CORPORATION, ANDHERI WEST

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Vs Ambika Trading Commissioner of Corporation Income Tax 101 Shree Ambashanti Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Chambers, Opp. Hotel Piramal Chamber, Parel Leena, Mumbai 400059 400012 PAN: AAJFA1123H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri. Aditya M. Rai (SR. DR) Date of Hearing 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the revenue arises out of final assessment order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi dated 27/09/2024 for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal:

2. Ground number 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidence in contravention of rule 46 of Income Tax Rules. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

4. From the records, we noticed that the AO in this case had made additions of Rs.7,91,06,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act, on the ground that the respondent had purchased immovable property which was reflecting in AIR statement, but no details were submitted during the course of re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.

5. However, during the course of appeal, Ld. CIT(E) admitted additional evidence in the shape of Sr. Contents Paper Book No Page 1 Written Submissions dtd. 27.04.2024, 25 to 59 07.05.02024 2 Allotment letter dated 18.07.2012 71-76 3 Agreement to sale dated 10.08.2012 77-91 4 Balance Sheet as on 31st March 2012 to 92-104 31.03.2014 5 Ledger Account of Sreekant, Officer 105-106 6 Government approved valuer report dtd. 135-145 15.04.12 7 Bank Statement of F.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 107-134 Which was submitted by the assessee vide different written statements and consequently deleted the additions.

6. It is an admitted fact that none of the above documents were filed by the assessee during the course of assessment. Therefore, CIT(A) forwarded these documents to the AO for seeking his Ay 2014-15 Ambika Trading Corporation remand report, however when no remand report was filed by the AO then Ld. CIT(A) passed orders in favour of assessee by relying upon the documents filed by the assessee and deleted the additions.

7. At the very outset, we had directed the assessee to place on record the copy of application, which, according to the assessee was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for seeking permission to file additional evidence, but even in spite of specific directions vide order dated 12/6/25 in open court, the assessee or his representative failed to file any such application and even did not appear or informed the court, in spite of repeated calls. In the order of Ld. CIT(A), there is no mention of any specific application moved under rule 46 of Income Tax Rules. Since the documents filed and relied upon by the assessee are of factual in nature and required verification. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not even mentioned as to how under the circumstances, the provisions of rule 46 of Income Tax Rules are attracted, but had admitted the documents and treated the same as evidence only because of the fact that the remand report was not filed by the AO.

8. Be that as it may, in our view, the interest of justice would be met. In case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate these issue afresh after seeking verification of the documents being relied upon by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has co-terminous powers with that of AO therefore, Ld. CIT(A) can exercise all the powers that of AO or can also call for the remand report. In doing so, if Ld. CIT(A) comes to the Ay 2014-15 Ambika Trading Corporation conclusion that the subordinate officials are not complying with the directions, then is that eventuality Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

9. Thus, keeping in view our above observations, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

10. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.