What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it legally important and not considered by lower authorities. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order and sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT. The revenue objected to the admission of these documents.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence filed before the ITAT should be admitted and whether the case should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

Sohanlal Gupta, Rourkela vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Hearing: 23/05

Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Cuttack, dated 24.11.2015, for the assessment year 2010-11.

At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee filed an application under Rule

18 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules for accepting additional

evidences, which are filed before the Tribunal for the first time. Ld A.R. of

the assessee highlighted the importance of the said additional evidences

and argued that the said issue goes to the root of the matter and legally

binding in nature and prayed for admitting the evidences and these

evidences were not filed before the lower authorities as there was no

2 ITA No. 23/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 11 occasion to consider the same and the additional evidences are placed in

the form of paper book Vol.I (page 1 to 671) and Vol.II (Page 672 to 1105).

On the other hand, Ld DR for the revenue objected to the admission

of additional evidences filed before the Tribunal.

We have examined the additional evidences placed before the

Tribunal and certainly legal in nature and the same has to be admitted in

view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of National Thermal

Power Corporation (299 ITR 383)(SC). Further, both the parties have

demonstrated the importance of documents filed as additional evidence

before going into the merits of the case. We observe that the Assessing

Officer and the CIT(A) have not considered the additional evidences with

supporting documents, which have valuable impact on decision of the case.

Therefore, in the interest of rendering substantial justice, we are of the

view that the additional evidences should be admitted and the assessee

should be provided an opportunity to putforth his grievance. Accordingly,

we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the

file of the Assessing Officer, who shall verify the genuineness of the

additional evidences and examine the facts and pass the order on merits

in accordance with law and it is needless to mention that the assessee

should be allowed reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing and the

assessee is directed to co-operate with the Assessing Officer in submitting

the details and completing the assessment.

3 ITA No. 23/ CTK/2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 11 5. Since we have set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find no

justification to adjudicate the appeal on merit.

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

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24 /05/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 24 /05/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sohanlal Gupta, C/O GSF Steels Pvt Ltd., Panposh Road, Rourkela. 2. The Respondent. Ito, Ward -1, Rourkela 3. The CIT, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

SOHANLAL GUPTA,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments