DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAMA NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T.-3(3)(1), M/s Rama Newsprint & Papers Room No. 609, 6th Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12th Floor, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 227, V.K. Shah Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAACR2499H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari (DR) Assessee by : None Date of Hearing: 03/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 03/09/2019 O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,49,235/- on account of unutilized cenvat receivable when the Assessee has not produced Assessment Year: 2010-11 any evidences during assessment proceedings to substantiate the claim? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,49,235/- on account of unutilzed cenvat receivable by allowing additional evidences to be filed by way of Cenvat Ledger A/c during appellate proceedings is contravention of Rule 46A (1) of I.T. Rules, 1962 since the Assessee had not filed the same before the AO in Assessment proceedings despite several opportunities being given?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in accepting the additional evidence and adjudicating on the basis of the document filed when the same should have been remanded back to the AO for verification in contradiction to Rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules 1962 before allowing relief?