KAILASH POMONA INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3401/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 January 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that giving the assessee one more opportunity to present additional evidence would not prejudice the Revenue and would promote justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed that due to business closure, additional evidence could not be filed before the lower authorities, and hence, it was filed before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer should consider additional evidence filed before the Tribunal when the assessee's business had closed during assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 01.01.2018Pronounced: 05.01.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore, dated 24.06.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Smt. B. Jaisheila, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed additional evidence before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. representative, since the assessee- company closed its business during the course of assessment proceeding, the confirmation letter and other material could not be filed before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the additional materials were filed before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. representative, the material filed before this Tribunal as additional evidence in the form of confirmation letter and other documents are absolutely essential for adjudicating the issue of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

3.

No one appeared for the Revenue inspite of issue of notice.

4.

The first issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ₹1,95,35,270/- under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee has also claimed another sum of ₹12,69,604/- as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act towards the rent paid. The Ld. representative for the assessee submitted before this Tribunal that the confirmation letter and the additional material could not be filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding since the business was closed by the assessee.

5.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee claims that the business of the assessee was closed and the confirmation letter could not be obtained during the course of assessment proceeding, giving one more opportunity to the assessee would not prejudice the interests of Revenue in any way.

Giving one more opportunity to the assessee would definitely promote the cause of justice. Since the additional evidence is filed first time before this Tribunal, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue of addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act and the claim of rent paid is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re- examine the matter afresh in the light of the material filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →