WORLEY PARSONS ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that during the course of appellate proceedings the Assesee has filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules running into 10 pages alongwith certain documents running into 48 pages for substantiating the claim of the assesse regarding the addition of Rs. 89,39,106/- on account of unexplained credits. He further submitted that after seeking the Remand Report from the AO, Ld. First Appellate Authority has rejected all the additional evidences by holding that the additional evidences filed by the assessee do not qualify for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. He draw our attention to the Application filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) under Ruled 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 containing pages A-1 to A-10 and the additional evidence attached alognwith the Application Page 1 to 48 of Small paper book and stated that the additional evidence filed by the assessee is very essential for substantiating the claim of the assessee which was not available at the time of assessment proceedings before the AO and therefore, requested that the additional evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A) may be admitted and the issue in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the issue in dispute afresh, as per law, after examining and enquiring the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee has not filed these additional evidence before the AO, in spite of the fact that the AO has given full opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the contention raised by the assessee in the Application fuled under Rule 46A dated 19.8.2010 before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the additional evidence filed by the assessee alongwith this application. After going through the contention raised by the Assessee in the Application filed under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 the assessee has stated that the said additional evidence is conclusive in so far as the purpose and source of such receipt by the assessee company. Since the approval has been granted by the RBI on March 12, 2010 i.e. post conclusion of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3), the assessee company was prevented by the sufficient cause from providing this evidence before the AO. In our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has not gone thoroughly the contentions raised by the assessee in the Application u/Rule 46A and has also not gone through the additional evidences filed by the asssessee which the assessee procured after passing the assessment order i.e. 24.12.2009 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961for the assessment year in dispute. For the sake of convenience, we are mentioning the date of Application filed by the assesee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dated 19.8.2010 and the additional evidences containing pages 1 to 48 i.e. FC-GPR Return submitted with RBI; Intimation made to RBI of receipt fo share application money; certificate from company secretary; certificate from Chartered Accountant for valuation of shares; certified true copy of the Resolution passed in Board Meeting; RBI approval for allotment of shares; RBI approval for allotment of shares; RBI letter dated 29.12.2010; Response dated 24.2.3010; Return of allotment and Board Resolution; Confirmation letter from Worley US France Pty Ltd., Australia; Special Purpose Financial Statements of parent company for year ended June 2007 and Company tax Return of Worley Parsons Group.

5.1 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly rejected the additional evidence filed by the Assessee which deserve to be admitted and therefore, in the interest of justice, we admit the additional evidence and remit back the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to decide the same afresh, after thoroughly examining the additional evidences filed by the assessee and give full opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.