PUNJAB IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER:

Punjab Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. DCIT-CC-1-Jalandhar /I.T.A. No.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 Page 2 of 4

the assessee has filed an application under Rule 46A with a request to

admit the confirmation for Mrs. Vinod Khanna, her sworn in affidavit, copy of PAN, copy of ledger account of the assessee duly confirmed by

Mrs. Vinod Khanna. However, the CIT (A) had did not admit the same on the ground that under which clause of Rule 46A(1) the case of the

assessee falls as nothing was produced before him. 4. The learned D.R. relied on order of CIT (A). 5. We have heard the Ld. D.R. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and law, we are of the view that the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A before CIT (A) are necessary

for proper appreciation of the issue under appeal and would cause of substantial justice. Such evidence may ultimately turn out to the

benefit of either taxpayer or the Revenue. We find support from the judgement of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Text

Hundred India (P)Ltd.[2011] 351 ITR 57 (Del): 197 Taxman 128(Del) : 51 DTR 241(Del) wherein it was observed as follows: “13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that

discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is filed by one of the parties to the

appeal and it need not to be a suo motu action of the Tribunal. The

aforesaid rule is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional

Punjab Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. DCIT-CC-1-Jalandhar /I.T.A. No.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 Page 3 of 4

evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such

additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in

the matter. It is well-settled that the procedure is handmade of

justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because

of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the

parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage. Once it is found

that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the

first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidence

and that this evidence would have material bearing on the issue

which needs to be decided by the Tribunal and ends of justice

demand admission of such an evidence, the Tribunal can pass an order

to that effect.” 6. In the light of above facts and circumstances and relying on

aforesaid decision, we direct the ld. CIT (A) to admit the additional

evidence filed by the assessee and decide all the issue involved

afresh. The CIT (A) is therefore, set-aside to the file of the CIT (A) to

decide the issue after examining additional evidence and any other

material which may be filed by the assessee before him in support of

his claim. The CIT (A) may decide the issue after making such

enquiries as necessary as deem fit and required further evidence as

required in the interest of justice in accordance with law and facts of

the case. Accordingly, entire assessment is set-aside to the file of the

CIT (A) for fresh consideration after affording proper opportunity of

Punjab Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. DCIT-CC-1-Jalandhar /I.T.A. No.516/ASR/2018/A.Y.:08-09 Page 4 of 4

being heard. Nevertheless, to say that the assessee will cooperate in

the enquiry in appellate proceedings and furnish required before CIT (A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The order pronounced in the open Court on 18.12.2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Amritsar: Dated: December 18, 2019/opm Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/ Guard file of ITAT. By order

Assistant Registrar