Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 636 - ITAT MUMBAIAdmission of additions evidences - Claim of exemption u/s 10(38) - Long term capital gain (LTCG) is arising on sale of listed equity shares - Production of additional evidence before the JCIT (Appeals) / CIT(Appeals) - Non-submission of the evidence supporting the sale of shares before the Assessing Officer since the notices were not sent to the functional email ids - HELD THAT:- We see merit in the contentions of the AR since at an overall level, the evidences furnished by the assessee supports that there has been an investment and that the same is sold during the year for a consideration and the AO should have called for further details if not satisfied with evidences already furnished by the assessee. Therefore in our considered view the non-admission of additional evidence for the reason that the assessee did not furnish the documentary evidence in spite of giving several opportunities is not correct. Before the CIT(A) the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay and also for admission of additional evidence. The assessee in both the petitions had stated that the notices being sent to the non-functional email id as the reason for delay in filing the appeal and for delay / non-submission of details before the AO - CIT(A) while condoning the delay has accepted the said submissions but did not consider same reason as sufficient cause for admission of additional evidence and has in the order has given a detailed finding in this regard - CIT(A) also relied on the remand report of the Assessing Officer where it is mentioned that the assessee despite having the evidences at their disposal wontedly did not submit the same. We are unable to appreciate this contention since there is no reason for the assessee to withhold submitting the required the details more so when the impugned addition is significant resulting in huge demand. In this regard we are also bound to take cognizance of the fact that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has given a direction to decide the application under rule 46A which the CIT(A) has not considered in his order. In view of these discussions we are of the view that the CIT(A) is not correct in not admitting the additional evidence while upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The matter remanded back to the AO with a direction to admit the additional evidences submitted by the assessee in connection with the sale of shares and allow the claim of exemption accordingly. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
|