Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARIShri Balaji V, C.A. Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-3, Bangalore dt.09.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following ground :
3. The crux of the above ground is that the assessee has not given proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. The facts of the case are that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not furnished the supporting evidence towards incurring of expenditure under the heads freight, rent and other expenses. Hence the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of these expenditure
debited to the profit and loss account. The assessee filed additional evidence for consideration by the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer has given enough opportunity of hearing to the assessee and there is no reasonable causes for not producing these evidences before the Assessing Officer. According to the CIT (Appeals), new evidence filed by the assessee cannot be admitted and dismissed the assessee's appeal by placing reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Rishi Sagar Vs. CIT,Ludhiana 88 taxmann.com 600 (P&H). Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee and the matter may be remitted to the file of Assessing Officer on the reason that the assessee had engaged CA and he failed to represent the assessee's case before the Assessing Officer and no fault of the assessee, the assessee is suffering. The learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed to provide one more opportunity of hearing on the reason that the assessee is very callous in his attitude and not co-operated before the Assessing Officer.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Before the CIT (Appeals), the assessee has produced documents in support of the claim of expenditure disallowed by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT (Appeals)
declined to consider the claim as there is no reasonable cause for admitting these fresh evidences. The CIT (Appeals) failed to point out discrepancies in the evidences furnished by the assessee before him as new evidence and he also refrained to consider the same. It would have been appropriate had he pointed out the discrepancies in the fresh evidences filed by the assessee and decide the matter on merit. Instead of this, he outrightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence in the interest of justice, I am inclined to remit the entire issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as he has no occasion to consider the fresh evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) as it was first time before the CIT (Appeals). The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the disputed issues in the light of the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals) after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2020.