TATA SPONGE IRON LTD GRATUITY FUND,BILAIPADA JODA ODISHA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1) BHUBANESHWAR, BHUBANESHWAR

Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Ms Neha Jhunjhunwala, CA appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

The assessee has also filed stay petition being S.P.No.12/CTK/2024. The assessee has also filed stay petition being S.P.No.12/CTK/2024. The assessee has also filed stay petition being S.P.No.12/CTK/2024. It may also be mentioned here that the assessee has not shown any It may also be mentioned here that the assessee has not shown any It may also be mentioned here that the assessee has not shown any financial difficulties nor has shown any justifiable reasons nor material financial difficulties nor has shown any justifiable reasons nor material financial difficulties nor has shown any justifiable reasons nor material

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case.

In regard to appeal filed by the assessee, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is the Gratuity Fund in respect of employees of Tata Sponge Iron Ltd. In the course of assessment proceedings, unfortunately the assessee had not provided the details in respect of contributions made towards the fund to an extent of Rs.57,90,53,960/-. On appeal, evidences were produced before the ld CIT(A) and ld CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee to an extent of Rs.51,76,98,329/-. In respect of balance amount of Rs.6,13,55,631/- relating to interest portion received from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and employer’s contribution as mentioned in the balance sheet, same was not accepted on the ground that evidences had not been produced. Ld CIT(A) has also in para 5.8 of his order questioned the nature and source of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,13,55,631/-. Ld AR drew our attention to the balance sheet and schedule there under to show the source of the amount of Rs.2,19,22,640/- and interest portion of Rs.3,84,41,162/- at pages 21 & 2 of paper book filed P a g e 2 | 4 by the assessee. Admittedly, these are evidences which have not been considered by the ld CIT(A). These evidences have been produced for the first time in the appellate proceedings. Ld CIT(A) has not admitted the same. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to admit such evidences insofar as an application under Rule 46A of IT Rules has not been filed either before the ld CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. However, it is noticed that the assessee has got evidences and the failure has been on the part of the assessee to produce such evidences before the Assessing Officer. Hence, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and re- adjudication in respect of amount of Rs.6,13,55,631/-. It must be mentioned that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the ld CIT(A) allowing relief to the assessee and consequently, that issue remains settled.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition stands dismissed.