DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. YKK INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5955/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 October 2018AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee requested to admit additional supporting evidence in appeals concerning multiple assessment years. The assessee argued that similar issues in earlier years did not require such documents, leading to a bonafide belief they were unnecessary.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the TPO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv
Hearing: 18.10.2018Pronounced: 22.10.2018

Heard together (7 matters)

ITA No. 5824/DEL/2015
ITA No. 6357/DEL/2015
ITA No. 1134/DEL/2014
ITA No. 561/DEL/2015
ITA No. 5955/DEL/2015
ITA No. 990/DEL/2014
ITA No. 122/DEL/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The above captioned appeals by the assessee and Revenue are preferred against separate orders of the CIT(A) pertaining to A.Ys 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity, though the quantum may differ.

2.

At the very outset, the ld. AR requested for admission of additional supporting evidences as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules.

3.

The ld. AR pointed out that Paper Book Volume in A.Y 2008-09 evidences receipt of services from the Associated Enterprises [AEs]. It is the say of the ld. AR that in earlier A.Ys., similar issues were involved and no such objection was raised or disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/TPO and, therefore, the assessee was under a bonafide belief that these documents were not required.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the ld. AR and have carefully perused the additional evidences brought on record. In our considered opinion, these additional evidences go to the root of the matter. We, accordingly, admit these additional evidences.

5.

Since we have admitted additional evidences, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the entire issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to file these evidences before the TPO and the TPO is directed to decide the issues afresh after considering the evidences so filed and after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2018.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →