UNITY SMC JOINT VENTURE.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-22(1), MUMBAI

62 crores and com the Act vide order dat 2.1 Aggrieved by th appeal before the Ld. the assessee filed an Rules, 1962 (herein admission of additio M/s Unity Infra Proje on the said sub-con assessee furnished a under the proviso to admission as additio the reasons for its in Assessing Officer du CIT(A), upon receipt from the Assessing report, objected to t After considering the to admit the addition Hon’ble Delhi High C 204 Taxman 106 (De the impugned order. 2.2 Thus, the presen learned CIT(A) was ju Un IT mpleted the assessment under s ted 30.11.2016. he said disallowance, the assess . CIT(A). In the course of appella n application under Rule 46A of nafter referred to as ‘the R onal evidence to substantiate ect Ltd., had already discharged ntract amount. In support of a certificate in Form No. 26AS o section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, an onal evidence. The assessee fu nability to furnish the said evid uring the assessment proceedin of the additional evidence, calle Officer. The Assessing Officer, he admission of the said addi e objections raised, the learned nal evidence, relying upon the j Court in CIT v. Manish Build Wel elhi), among other judicial prec nt appeal raises the crucial issue ustified in rejecting the addition nity SMC Joint Venture 4 TA No. 225/MUM/2024 section 143(3) of see preferred an ate proceedings, f the Income-tax Rules’), seeking that the payee, d its tax liability this claim, the S, as prescribed nd requested its urther explained dence before the ngs. The learned ed for objections in the remand itional evidence. CIT(A) declined judgment of the ll (P.) Ltd. [2011] cedents cited in e of whether the nal evidence filed by the assessee und disallowance under s facts and circumstan 3. Before us, the L containing pages 1 to issued by the Charter 4. We have heard the relevant material is eligibility of additi 46A of the Rules. additional evidence o “8.3 During considered th Remand rep appellant and appellant with AO issued no sent on 01.11 said sub-con disallowed u/ 30.11.2016 b 18.10.2016 t submit requir Chartered Ac accounts, reco matter and on to admit addi that does not of the Income appellant to cause from proceedings. documented from the reco Un IT der Rule 46A of the Rules an section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was w nces of the case. Ld. counsel for the assessee file o 35 comprising the copy of the red Accountant. rival submissions of the parti s on record. The limited questio ional evidence for admission in The Ld. CIT(A) has declined observing as under: the course of appellate proceedings, I he assessment order, submissions of ort, Rejoinder to remand report sub d the grounds of appeal. The reply su h regard to additional evidence is not ten otice u/s 142(1) on 17.10.2016 and su 1.2016 & 12.11.2016 required to explain ntract charges of Rs. 10.62 crores s /s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The order passed by which AO has given ample of time i.e. to 29.11.2016) which is more than suf red details. The reason given by app ccountant had to examine several docum ords etc of the party in order to satisfy hi nly then he could issue Form 26A is not s itional evidence as the same is not tenab t constitute sufficient cause as required u Tax Rules, 1962. In my opinion, there is state that the appellant was prevente producing the said evidence durin The assessee was given many opportun in the assessment order and are ord.” nity SMC Joint Venture 5 TA No. 225/MUM/2024 nd whether the warranted in the ed a Paper Book Form No. 26AS ies and perused on in the matter n terms of Rule d to admit the have carefully the appellant, mitted by the ubmitted by the nable since, the bsequent mails n as to why the should not be d u/s 143(3) on . 43 days (from ufficient time to ellant that the ments, books of imself about the sufficient cause ble. In my view under Rule 46A no case for the d by sufficient ng assessment nities which are also verifiable

1 Having carefully CIT(A) declined to ad a period of 43 days submit the requisite However, in our cons a certificate is contin case, and no rigid prescribed. The pos additional time to s disregarded. The ass 26A, which is availab certificate, issued b unequivocally suppo satisfied all conditio 40(a)(ia) of the Act. technicalities should substantive justice. I such evidence merely grave prejudice to th the statutory provisi the interest of subst aside the impugned matter back to him directed to admit the afresh, strictly in acc Un IT y examined the matter, we find dmit the additional evidence on was sufficient for the assessee e certificate from the Charter sidered view, the requirement of ngent upon the facts and circum or inflexible timeframe can sibility that the assessee may secure the necessary certifica essee has placed on record a co ble at pages 2 to 5 of the Paper by a duly qualified Chartere orts the contention that the ons prescribed under the pro It is a well-settled principle t d not be allowed to defeat In the present case, the denial y on a hyper-technical ground he assessee and frustrate the v on. In light of the foregoing dis tantial justice, we deem it app order of the learned CIT(A) a m for reconsideration. The lea e additional evidence and adjud cordance with law, after affordin nity SMC Joint Venture 6 TA No. 225/MUM/2024 that the learned the ground that to procure and red Accountant. f obtaining such mstances of each be universally y have required ation cannot be opy of Form No. r Book. The said ed Accountant, e assessee has oviso to section that procedural the cause of of admission of would result in very purpose of scussion and in propriate to set and remand the arned CIT(A) is dicate the issue ng a reasonable opportunity of hear assessee. We order assessee are accordin 5. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 21/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.