Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata’s order dated 01.03.2016 passed in case No.142/CIT(A)-23/Cir-1/14-15 upholding Assessing Officer’s action disallowing / adding interest of bank loan, excess interest debited, prior period expenses, addition of demat charges, security transaction tax, lease agreement, stamp charges, repair and maintenance charges, demurrage charges, lorry hire charges, ocean freight charges, port charges, customs duty, goods inspection charges, brokerage and commission, clearing agent charges, foreign M/s Gurudayal Gaangabux Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kol. Page 2 exchange contract gain and addition on account of long term capital gains treated as business profits involving corresponding sums of ₹12,66,447/-, ₹81,680/-, ₹56,950/-, ₹554/-, ₹2,008/-, ₹28,892/-, ₹10,685/-, ₹12,42,429/-, ₹1,63,093/- & 15,429/-; respectively made in assessment order dated 31.12.2010, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
We notice at the outset that CIT(A)’s detailed adjudication in page 11 of the lower appellate order rejects assessee’s relevant corresponding details filed during the course of lower appellate proceedings mainly on the ground that they are not admissible as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The instant taxpayer’s voluminous records pertaining to all the above instant issues have been left as not considered during the course of lower appellate proceedings.
Learned counsel representing assessee has prepared a detailed chart of all the above issues vis-à-vis the relevant details files qua all the seven issues raised on merits in the instant appeal. We find that the Assessing Officer’s scrutiny notice raising queries qua the said issues are at pages 443 and 444 of the paper book comprising his notice u/s. 142(1) dated 06.09.2010. The assessee placed all of its details available on record i.e. at pages 447, 446, 445, 446-450 & 448 corresponding to all the above issues as compiled in the paper book. Learned Departmental Representative is very fair in not disputing this factual position indicating the assessee to have placed on record the said details very well before the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. It therefore transpires that the CIT(A) has erred in treating the M/s Gurudayal Gaangabux Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kol. Page 3 very details already forming part of assessment records to be additional evidence not admissible under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We therefore deem it appropriate that the assessee deserves one more innings before CIT(A) on all these issues for afresh adjudication as per law after affording sufficient opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. The instant lis therefore stands restored back to the CIT(A).