LIFECYCLE SOFTWARE PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO., WARND-9(2)(2), MUMBAI

At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the appeal pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09 and one more year on identical issues are pending before the learned CIT(A). Learned AR also filed certain additional evidences along with a petition seeking permission to file additional evidences. Learned AR submitted that certain important aspects relating to various additions made by the Assessing Officer could not brought to the notice of Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) and hence those issues have been decided against the assessee. Learned AR submitted that these additional evidences would support the contentions of the assessee and would help in arriving at proper decision with regard to those issues. Accordingly, learned AR prayed that additional evidences furnished may kindly be admitted.

On the contrary, learned DR strongly opposed the addition of additional evidences. He submitted that the assessee was having ample opportunities to present its case and also to file evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A). Having failed in those stages, he submitted that the assessee should not be permitted to furnish additional evidences at this level.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed that the issues contested in the appeals relate to head of income under which receipts pertaining to letting of furniture, machinery and providing various facilities are assessable and also relating to disallowance of bank interest. It is the contention of the assessee that certain evidences could not be furnished before the tax authorities and hence they have been furnished before the Tribunal in the form of additional evidences. Accordingly learned AR submitted that it is vital to consider those issues in order to render proper justice to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we admit additional evidence furnished by the assessee. Since these additional evidences require examination and since identical issues are pending before the learned CIT(A) in other years, we deem it proper to restore all the issues contested in these two appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) in both the years under consideration and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh along with appeals filed for other years.

However, the above said order passed by us is subject to certain terms. Since, the assessee has failed to cooperate with the tax authorities, we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed cost of ` 10,000/- for each of the two years under consideration. Accordingly, we impose a cost of ` 10,000/- for each of the two years i.e. ` 20,000/- upon the assessee in aggregate. Above said cost shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax department on or before 31.5.2018 as “other fees”. Subject to the above said cost, both the appeals are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) on the above said terms.

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