Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R
PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bangalore passed under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in building and construction works and filed the Return of Income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 with loss of Rs.21,34,540. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the learned Authorized Representative appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee company has obtained unsecured loans from Directors, related parties, and creditors and called for the details and confirmations and dealt at page 2 to 4 of the order and in respect of few creditors. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions and confirmations and made addition of Rs94 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act and Assessed the total income of Rs.72, 65,460 and passed the orders under Section 143(3) of the Act dt.29.12.2017. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). Whereas the CIT (Appeals) concurred with the action of the Assessing Officer and rejected the additional evidences filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to provide sufficient cause before the Assessing Office and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed an appeal with the Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the evidence of confirmation of creditors and sale deed filed as additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1963 and prayed for admission of additional evidence and one more opportunity to substantiate the case before the first appellate authority. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the arguments of learned Authorized Representative are in respect of admission of additional evidences filed before the CIT(Appeals) and was rejected.
We found that the CIT(Appeals) has not admitted the additional evidence as no sufficient cause was explained for not filing before the Assessing Officer. We on perusal of the Paper Book filed by the assessee found that these additional evidences are the confirmations of the creditors, who have advanced money to the assessee. we are of the opinion that these additional evidences goes to the root of the case as envisaged, in decision making by the appellate authority. considering the principle of natural justice, we admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee and set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issue along with additional evidences to the file of CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate on merits and pass a speaking order. The assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.