Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 14.08.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 20.12.2017.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “The appellant prays and appeals that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), has erred in law and on facts upholding the addition made by the assessing officer ITO Ward -2(1), Bharuch on account of short term capital gain of Rs.7,52,721/- on technical grounds of evidence not being produced before the assessing officer despite the fact the they were produced before the appellate authority in the same should have been accepted and adjudicated by the learned CIT Appeals (NFAC).
706/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Shree Chemopharma Aknleshwar Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant pleads as under; 1. The addition made on account of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.7,52,721/- be deleted. Without prejudice to the above Appellant reserves its right to make any amendments to the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted the additional evidences before ld. CIT(A) in respect of the above grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were not admitted by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel explained the sufficient reasons for not filing these additional evidences before the assessment stage, stating that these additional evidences were not available when the assessment proceedings were going on. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, not to file these additional evidences before the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted these additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) and explained the sufficient causes of being not submitted before Assessing Officer. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that these additional evidences should be admitted and matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue argued that assessee has not explained the reasons as to what was prevented to the assessee, not to submit these evidences before Assessing Officer.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the reasons explained by the assessee that he could not submit these evidences before the Assessing
706/SRT/2023/AY.2015-16 Shree Chemopharma Aknleshwar Pvt. Ltd. Officer are acceptable as these evidences were not available during assessment stage. Therefore we are of the view that substantial justice should not be denied on account of small technicalities. Hence, we admit these additional evidences and remit these additional evidences to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine these additional evidences and adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to submit the relevant documents and evidences before Assessing Officer, as and when required by the Assessing Officer. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 29/12/2023 in the open court.