What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging the delay in obtaining documents from M/s.Cybermate Infotek Ltd. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on share sales, but the Assessing Officer (AO) treated them as short-term. The issue was previously remitted to the AO for re-examination due to a lack of evidence. The assessee has now obtained additional documents from a third party and seeks to present them.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in producing documentary evidence by the assessee justifies admitting additional evidence and remanding the case for re-adjudication.

Living Waterfine Technoloiges… vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in Income-tax Appeal No.69/2009-10 dated 20.10.2015 for assessment year 2000-01.

Shri I.Dinesh, Advocate represented on behalf of assessee and Shri S.Vijayaprabha, JCIT represented on behalf of Revenue.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld.A.R that the assessee is doing the business on water treatment. The assessee had claimed long term capital gains while filing its return for the relevant assessment year. The ld. Assessing Officer had treated the sale of the shares as giving rise to the short term capital gains in the assessment on the ground that purchase and sale of shares took place during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2000-01.

The issue had reached the Tribunal and the ITAT remitted the issue back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-examining the issue as the assessee had been unable to produce all the evidences. On account of delay in obtaining the documents from M/s.Cybermate Infotek Ltd., the AO had reaffirmed it in set aside assessment, which was also upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that no independent and corroborative evidences in support of the claim of assessee was produced. The assessee has now obtained the details from M/s.Cybermate Infotek Ltd., which the assessee has filed in the form of paper book containing 55 pages and which is supported by an affidavit along with a prayer of admission of additional evidences. In the affidavit, the assessee has submitted that pages 25 to 55 were produced for the first time as there was a delay in obtaining evidences from M/s.Cybermate Infotek Ltd. It was a prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication as the assessee is now in possession of all the evidences required to substantiate its case.

In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the prayer. It was a submission that the assessee should have obtained the details earlier. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to sustained.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Perusal of additional evidences in the form of paper book clearly shows that the assessee has substantially mentioned that documents from pages 15 to 24 were produced first time before the Ld.CIT(A) and pages from 25 to 55 were being produced before the Tribunal for the first time. In the affidavit for admission of additional evidences, the assessee has categorically admitted that the delay was on account of obtaining the documents from M/s.Cybermate Infotek Ltd. This affidavit has not been found to be false. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice the issue in this appeal is restored the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re- adjudication. The additional evidences filed stand admitted. The issue is restored to AO for re-adjudication after granting assessee adequate of opportunity of producing all such evidences as required to substantiate its case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2018, at Chennai.

LIVING WATERFINE TECHNOLOIGES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments