Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य,राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार-PER RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Challenging the order of the CIT(A)-20,Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal. Assessee,a partnership firm,filed its return of income on 30/10/2007,declaring Loss of Rs.1.25 lakhs.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment,u/s.143(3) of the Act,on 30/12/2009,determining its income at Rs.44.73 lakhs 2.Vide its application,dated Nil ,he assessee has made a request to admit additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. In its application the assessee has mentioned that following documents were not available to the Assessing Officer(AO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). i) Agreement for settlement of Project Account (consent terms); ii) Financial Statements of M/s. VBR Associates alogwith the computation of income and ITR Acknowledgement for AY 2017-18; iii) Break-up of the income offered by M/s. VBR Associates and iv) Financial statements of the appellant for AY 2017-18 It was further stated that the above documents were vital to decide the issues arising in the appeal, that the documents indicated that income considered by the AO and enhanced by the FAA was offered for taxation by M/s.VIBR Associates in its return of income filed for AY. 2017-18, that the enhancement of income amounted to double addition, that the documents came into existence after the order of the FAA .
5313/M/11-One Stop India P.Ltd.
3.During the course of hearing before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the agreement for settlement of the Project Account was executed on 16/02/2016, that the Financial Statements of M/s. VBR Associates and the assessee for the year ended 31/3/2017 could not have been filed during the appellate proceedings, that the documents were very important to decide the tax liability and the year of taxing the income. The Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.
4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material.We find that the AO /FAA was not having the benefit of the documents produced before us as additional evidence. We are of the opinion that documents,produced before us,are very important to decide the taxability of the assessee as well as year in which the income has to be assessed.They would also help to decide the issue as to in whose hands income was to be assessed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are restoring back the issues,raised before us,to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents produced before us. The assessee will be free to raise the issues of taxability of income and year of assessment before the FAA. As we are restoring back the issue to the file of the FAA, we are not deciding the appeal on merits.