M/S. PASHUPATI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

That the CIT(Appeals) has , in view of the, fact and circumstances of the case, grossly erred on facts and in law in ignoring and rejecting the application under Rule 46A and the additional evidences filed by the assessee.

That the CIT(Appeals) has, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, failed to appreciate the fact that this is only a case where the disallowances of Rs 13,82,267 were made only because the assessee could not produce the supporting bills and voucher and there are no other adverse findings by the AO .

That the CIT(Appeals) as, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has now produced the bills and vouchers for the disallowed amount of Rs 13,82,267 and hence no addition and or penalty is called for now .

That the AO has failed to appreciate that no satisfaction was recorded before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) and as such the notice issued u/s 271 (1 ) (c) and the penalty order passed under said section are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.

That the information filed and the material available on 'record are not properly considered and as such the order imposing penalty U/S 271 (1) (c) is illegal and bad in law.

That in any case the penalty imposed is unjust, arbitrary and highly excessive.”

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 draw our attention towards the impugned order at Para no. 4 Page No. 3 & 4 and stated that the assessee has filed some additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) which has not been admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee should have brought the additional evidence before the Appellate Authority at the time of decision on the quantum addition, not in penalty proceedings which is contrary to the law and facts of the case, because the additional evidence can be filed at any time for substantiating the claim of the assessee, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 . . NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 . . He requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the AO to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee as well as for producing the evidences for substantiating its claim before the AO.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below.

We have heard both the partiers and perused the relevant records available with us, especially the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, we are of the considered view that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 , , , , the assessee can file NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 the additional evidences before any authority for substantiating its claim subject to some condition. In the interest of justice, the evidence produced by the assessee which the assessee has enclosed in the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 40 in which he has attached the copy of the submission filed on 6.12.2013; Copy of Application under Rule 46A; ledger account of Jindal Cargo Movers; Bank statement of Pashupati Spinning and Weaving Mills; Details of Travelling expenses of employees; Ledger accounts pertaining to other parties; Details of expenses of H.M. Jain and Ledger accounts of BIC Logistics Ltd. needs to be examined by the AO because the same are very much important for the correct decision on the issue in dispute. Therefore, we are admitting the additional evidences filed by the Assessee which has wrongly been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard as well as opportunity of producing the additional evidences as discussed above before the AO.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.