TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under consideration and go to the root of the matter, therefore, these are admitted. However, since these documents were not available to the ld. CIT(A) for his consideration, we, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law, after considering the additional evidence furnished by the assessee first time before the ITAT and by providing due & reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 5939/Del./2013 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2016 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM AND Sh. Kuldip Singh, JM For The Appellant : Sh. Satyam Seth, Adv. A.J.Panda, Adv. For The Respondent : Sh. K.K.J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l particulars of income in its return of income to the best of its belief. The reliance was placed in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. reported at (2010) 322 ITR 158. The AO however, did not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee and considered ₹ 17,64,915/- added by the AO on account of long term capital gain as concealed income and accordingly penalty of ₹ 5,99,895/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was claiming depreciation on the total cost of the factory land and building, as it was not possible to segregate the cost of land from total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars were furnished in the return of income and the mistake was an inadvertent one not with the motive to defraud the Revenue. The assessee also pointed out mistake in calculation of the tax and the penalty. 5. The ld. CIT, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and sustained the penalty levied by the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal and had furnished an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences stating therein as under : May it please vour honours 1. The present appeal arises out of order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi dated 11.9.2013, whereby, the CIT(A) has upheld the order levying p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Income 1,31,77,350/- 4. Since the Appellant has been claiming depreciation on the entire cost of factory building and land at Shivakasi, Tamilnadu, therefore, on sale of the factory, the entire consideration of ₹ 46,00,000/- was reduced from the block of fixed assets (building). 5.The assessment u/s 143(3) was made at an income of ₹ 1,49,70,219/-. In computing the income, the profit on sale of factory at Shivakasi was assessed as long term capital gain, which was computed at ₹ 17,64,915/-. 6. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 5,99,895/- u/s 271(l)(c), for the reason that the capital gain was not shown in the return and only after the query, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation on the block as reduced by ₹ 46,00,000/-, the computation of income for assessment year 2010-11 to 2014-15 with balance sheets and the assessment orders for the respective years are being filed at pages 10 to 63 of the paper book. . The assessment orders for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 would show that the Appellant has forgone the depreciation in the later years. 10. That the position that emerges is that by reducing the block of asset of factory building by the amount of sale consideration of ₹ 46,00,000/- , the Appellant increased its income for all times to come. Thus seen in totality, the action of the Appellant of not declaring capital gain was not motivated to conceal the income / evade tax bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment years. Admission of additional evidence would not cause any prejudice to the department, rather, it would advance the cause of justice. In view of the above, it is submitted that in the interest of justice and to enable this Hon'ble Tribunal to arrive at a just decision, the additional evidence may be admitted and be adjudicated upon. It is submitted accordingly. For : Brijbasi Art Press Ltd. 6. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and requested to admit the additional evidences. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR opposed the admission of the additional evidences and submitted that the assessee did not furnish these documents either befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
