TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or examination and verifying the aforesaid additional evidences and then decide the addition in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A.No.500/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. and Anshul Sachar, Adv. For The Department : S h. Anuj Arora, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/11/2012 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Dehradun on the following grounds:- Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, your appellant respectfully submits the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other: Ground No.1 That based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO and sustaining the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) with regards to payments of ₹ 90,504,600 made to MIs GX Technology Limited for the outright purchase of geological data. Ground N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in dispute may not be deleted without verifying the veracity of the additional evidences filed by the Assessing Officer. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant records especially the orders of the Revenue Authorities, the Application filed by the Asessee during the course of hearing in which the assessee has attached the additional evidences i.e. Tax Residency Certificate issued by the tax authorities of USA certifying that GX Technology Corporation is resident of USA for the purposes of taxation and Certificate dated 31.1.2006 issued by GX Technologies Corporation certifying that it is resident of USA in terms of Article 4 of the India US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and does not have Permanent Establishment in India in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. The contents of the Application filed by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules are reproduced as under:- BG Group is present in India through branch office and project offices of its Cayman Islands entity, BG Exploration Production India Limited ( BGEPIL or' the Applicant ) which is engaged in the business of prospec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the CIT(A), who, vide order dated 21.03.2011, disallowed the aforesaid expense of 90,504,600 by holding that the applicant had been to furnish Tax Residency Certificate (TRC') issued by the tax authorities of USA certifying that GX Technology was tax resident of USA. In order to rebut the findings of the CIT(A), which became known from the appellate order, for the first time, the applicant now seeks to place on record the following documents: Tax Residency Certificate issued by the tax authorities of USA certifying that GX Technology Corporation is resident of USA for purposes of taxation Certificate dated 31.01.2006 issued by GX Technologies certifying that it is resident of USA in terms of Article 4 of the India US DTAA and does not have PE in India in terms of Article 5 thereof. The aforesaid evidence is crucial to rebut the allegations levelled by the CIT(A) and may kindly be admitted as additional evidence in terms of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for judicious disposal of the present appeal. The said evidence could not be filed earlier since the same was not requisitioned by the CIT (A), before deciding the issue against the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer, if the evidence sought to be adduced by the applicant is crucial, to the disposal of the appeal. The relevant observations of the Court are as under: 8. The aforesaid contention appears to be devoid of any merit. It is a matter of record that before admitting the additional evidence, the CIT (A) had obtained remand report from the AG. While submitting his report, the A G had not objected to the admission of the additional evidence, but had merely reiterated the contentions in the assessment orders. It is only after considering the remand report, the CIT (A) had admitted the additional evidence. It cannot be disputed that this additional evidence was crucial to the disposal of the appeal and had a direct bearing on the guantum of claim made by the assessee. Plea of the assessee which was taken before the AO remains the same. The AO had taken adverse note because of non-production of certain documents to support the plea and it was in these circumstances, the additional evidence was submitted before the CIT (A). It cannot be said not is it the case of the Revenue that additional evidence is not permissible at all before the first appellate authority. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
