What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient time to file documents before the AO and that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering the additional evidence.

The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was rejected for not providing sufficient cause. The assessee argued that it did not have enough time to furnish these documents before the AO due to a change in jurisdiction and a swift assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence without considering the assessee's plea of insufficient time and violation of natural justice.

M/S Innovative Retail Concepts… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT (DR)

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 04/07/2018 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-3, Bangalore. 2. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that, before Ld.CIT(A) assessee had filed additional evidences which were not considered/admitted by Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences by observing that assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to furnish these evidences before Ld.AO.

Ld.AR submitted that these documents are relevant for deciding the issue under consideration. He submitted that sufficient time was not granted before Ld.AO to file these documents and therefore principles of natural Justice was violated.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of the orders passed by authorities below.

We note that the jurisdiction was changed to the present assessing officer vide order dated 13/10/2017. Thereafter assessment proceedings started and assessee was called upon to file various details in respect of VAT returns for assessment year 2015-16. We note that assessee vide its reply dated 18/12/2017 filed the VAT returns and on 26/12/2017 a reconsideration was filed as per the requirement of Ld.AO. Thereafter, Ld.AO did not call for any other documents and on 29/12/2017 assessment order was passed.

We are therefore convinced that assessee did not have sufficient time/opportunity before Ld.AO to file various other documents in support of its contention. In such circumstances Ld.CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence are decided the issue on merits.

We therefore remand this issue back to Ld.CIT(A) by admitting the additional evidences filed by Ld.AR before us. We direct Ld.CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on merits having regards to the additional evidences filed by assessee. Assessee is also directed to file any other details in support of its contention before Ld.CIT(A). Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to assessee. Accordingly, the issues raised before us stands set aside to Ld.CIT(A). In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 13th January, 2021. /Vms/ Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file By order

M/S INNOVATIVE RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments