Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a company engaged in cultivation and manufacture of Tea and Natural Rubber, filed a return declaring a loss for AY 2009-10. The AO disallowed 35% of rubber tree sale proceeds and other expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition for rubber tree sales but confirmed other disallowances, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT admitted the additional evidences submitted by the appellant, finding them relevant and timely. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the appellant, with all other contentions remaining open.
Key Issues
Whether additional evidence should be admitted to substantiate claims regarding disallowances of ad-hoc expenses, provisions for rubber estate, and expenses for defunct rubber wood division, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 16.09.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-2010.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of cultivation and manufacture of Tea and Natural Rubber. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on 23.09.2009 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,25,71,978/-. Against the said The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle-4(2), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 27.12.2011 passed u/s. 14393) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a loss of Rs. 37,75,148/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax, 35% of the sale proceeds of rubber trees of Rs. 1,50,73,066/- rejecting the contention of the appellant that sale of rubber trees cannot be taxed. The AO also made disallowance of provisions of adhoc expenses of Rs. 24,71,265/-. The AO made another disallowance of Rs. 35% of provisions made in respect of rubber estate of Rs. 1,87,259/-. The AO also disallowed the expenses claimed in respect of defunct rubber wood division of Rs. 8,62,.733/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) challenging the disallowance, who vide the impugned order deleted the addition made on account of sale of rubber trees of Rs. 52,75,573/- and confirmed the balance additions for failure of the appellant to substantiate the same.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
During the course of hearing the appellant made application for admission of additional evidences in the form of following documents: - The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. i) True copy of the Resolution passed by the Board Directors at its Meeting held on 22.04.2009. ii) Copy of confirmation of account submitted by M/s. Credwin Holdings India Pvt. Ltd. with the Appellant. iii) Form 16A submitted by the appellant. iv) Copy of confirmation of account by M/s. Win Power Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. in the books of the Appellant. v) Form 16A submitted by the Appellant. vi) Copy of the confirmation of account submitted by M/s. Phosphate Enterprises & Investments Ltd., confirming its transaction with the Appellant during the relevant previous year. vii) Form 16A issued by the Appellant. viii) Copy of Directors’ Report, Compliance Certified issued by the Company Secretary ix) Details of expenses included in Para-6(3) page-3 of the Paper Book already submitted.
It is submitted that the above documents are relevant to decide the admissibility or otherwise of the claims made in the appeal and the same could not be filed earlier for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant.
On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR had no serious objection to admit the additional evidences and send back the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. 8. Having heard the rival submissions we are satisfied with the reasons stated in the application for admission of additional evidences and, therefore, admit the same and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. We make it clear that all other contentions raised by the appellant are kept open before the AO.
In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2025.