M/S. TRG-JKS JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6229/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed to admit the additional evidence, finding it relevant to the case. Since the Assessing Officer (AO) had not examined this evidence, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT, which could not be filed before the lower authorities due to a dispute with another company. The Revenue objected to the admission of this evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence, not filed before lower authorities due to a dispute, should be admitted by the ITAT and if so, what is the consequential action.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Shri C.M.Garg, JM & Shri L.P.Sahu, AM

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Pushpa
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 14.06.2016

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 19/08/2013 passed in first appeal no. 297/2011-12 for AY 2009-10. Application under rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 of the assessed

2.

We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record of the Tribunal. The ld. Sr. Counsel of the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the said application at S.No. 2, 3, 5 & 6 in the volume 4 of assessee’s paper book goes to the root of the matter and would be relevant to decide the issue involved in the appeal hence the same

2 TRG-JKS Joint Venture may kindly be admitted and considered as additional evidence while deciding the appeal. The ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the accounts of M/s JKS could not be furnished on account of dispute between the assessee and other company as under the terms and conditions of the supplementary agreement, M/s TRG, the head partner has taken security was refunded after satisfactory completion of work.

3.

Replying to the above, the ld. DR strongly objected to the admission and consideration of additional evidence sought to be submitted before the Tribunal. However, he could not controvert this fact that the same could not be submitted before authorities below due to dispute between the assessee and M/s JKS. At the same time, the ld. DR also could not demolish this contention of the ld. Sr. Counsel that the documents placed at S.No. 2, 3, 5 & 6 goes to the root of the matter and are relevant for proper adjudication of the case.

4.

In view of the above, we are also in agreement with the contention and prayer of the ld. DR that if it is found just and proper to allow the assessee to file additional evidence and the same is admitted for consideration then the case should be restored to the file of the AO afresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In view of the foregoing discussion we allow the application of the assessee and additional evidence, which could not be submitted before the authorities below due to sufficient reason of dispute between the JV parties, is admitted for consideration. Since the AO was not allowed opportunity to examine the additional evidence hence we find it appropriate to restore the case to file for framing of afresh assessment order after providing due opportunity of 3 TRG-JKS Joint Venture hearing to the assessee and after considering the additional evidence as admitted by us by the earlier part of this order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/07/2016)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →