A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCTS RANGE LTD., MUMBAI

I have had the benefit of reading the opinion the Hon’ble Accountant Member, and I am agreement. However, I am setting out my perspective on the limited issue of admission of additional evidence. In relation to Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue in Assessment Year 2013-14 it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that when the additional evidence was sent to the CIT(A) for comments/report thereon, the Assessing Officer did not raise any objections to the admission of additional evidence; and provided comments on merits of the additional evidence, therefore, now in appeal before the Tribunal the Revenue is barred from challenge the admission of additional evidence; and contend before the Tribunal that the same has been admitted without complying with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 [for short ‘IT Rules’]. In principle we do not find any merit the submission advanced on behalf of the Assessee as Rule 46A(2) specifically provides that no additional evidence shall be admitted unless the CIT(A) records in writing the reasons for such admission. It would be pertinent to note that the Assessee cannot claim admission of Page No. 18

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., additional evidence as a matter of right. Rule 46A(1) of the IT Rules, prescribes the circumstances in which additional evidence can be admitted. Therefore, on an application made by the Assessee, the CIT(A) is required to exercise his discretion to admit or deny admission of additional evidence and record reasons for the same in writing. In the present case the CIT(A) has not specifically recorded reasons for admission of additional evidence. However, I concur that the facts and circumstances of the present case warranted admission of additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A(1)(b) of the IT Rules as the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Assessee had placed on assessment record list of 2,83,067 persons from whom advance was received. As per the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer randomly selected few persons; carried out inquiry and thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the Assessee on 23/03/2015 and the Assessment Order was passed on 30/03/2015. Thus, leaving no time to the Assessee to adduce evidence to controvert the findings in the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. From perusal of the Assessment Order, it also not clear whether the Assessee was actually confronted with the findings of the inquiry carried out by the Assessing Officer in case of randomly

In concurrence, both appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the revenue in (A.Y. 2012-13) is dismissed.

As mentioned elsewhere, the underlying facts in (A.Y. 2013-14) are identical to the facts considered by us hereinabove, for our detailed discussion therein ITA No. 6333/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) is also dismissed.